OFFICIAL MINUTES BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS May 31, 2006

Transcription

1 OFFICIAL MINUTES BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS May 31, 2006 Members present: Malcolm Hodnett, Gary McNeal, Clarence Savoie, Rudy Soignet and Monica Wilson Members absent: Jan Maki Also Present: Kermit Kraemer, Public Works Director, Errol Price, City Inspector and Ruby Maggio, Secretary The first order is the meeting minutes from the April 26, 2006 meeting, do we have any corrections, changes, or do we have a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes. Mr. McNeal made a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes and to accept the minutes as presented; the motion was seconded by Mr. Soignet, all members were in favor. Item 1 was to consider a request by Site Enhancement Services, Inc. on behalf of Advance Auto Parts to install two 36 x 42 7 building signs at 514 Jackson Street (C-2 Zoning District). Mr. Brandon Reynolds of South Bend, IN came forward and stated this is my associate, Courtney Nawrot. On behalf of Advance Auto Parts, Site Enhancement Services, my employer and my associate, Courtney and myself, we thank you for allowing us to present to the Board tonight. I m real excited to be for more reasons than meetings, to find new people and seeing more of the great state of Louisiana, I come from South Bend and I ll tell you something you guys already know is you guys can cook and I m going to try and set a record for how many meals I can get in in a day, I ve got to have good food while I can it s pretty bland up there but I m also here to address the signage at Advance Auto Parts. We re proposing a variance be granted for allowance to remodel the two existing wall signs in conjunction with their nationwide re-branding program. What we re seeing at the site is, from all possible directions there is zero exposure traveling to the site. We want to create the best situation for those looking for the site itself and that would, there are three main points I ll over with that, one is Advance Auto Parts is reinvesting in the community, upgrading it s site, upgrading it s facilities, upgrading it s looks. This is a replacement of the existing signage, it is not an increase and thirdly, it is a definite improvement in aesthetics. I have some new handouts, if you won t mind I ll hand these out. Mr. Hodnett replied sure, let s see is that the same thing that we have. Mr. Reynolds stated there are a few more pages added. Mr. Hodnett stated do you have a copy or I ll just pass this one around, well actually this is the same thing. Mr. Reynolds stated there s like just two pictures on the back, that s all. Mr. Hodnett replied oh, ok. Mr. Reynolds stated it is just showing the site plot. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, I see, the view down Jackson St. is what you re referring to; the last two pages are some photos. Mr. Reynolds stated yes it is not a big change from what you already have. Mr. Reynolds stated first I d like to consider the reinvestment in the site, in the community, an updated building, a continual reinvestment in the site, corridor and Thibodaux itself is definitely helpful, a strong business is good for everybody in the community, those looking for employment, those looking for quality service and quality automotive products. A successful business contributes to the tax base in many different ways, property income and sales tax, so I feel that is a definite advantage to everyone involved. Secondly, this is just a replacement of signage, it is not an increase, due to the lengthy title of Advance Auto Parts, we request in order to provide adequate notification to motorists that this sign stay the same size. Maintaining the signs at the current size would serve the purpose to help the motorists in identifying the location of the establishment. Many of you know signs are a way finding tool, they are very effective in helping drivers maneuver safely to their destination. The petitioner seeks a grant through the proposed variation because the length of our corporate trademark name, Advance Auto Parts wouldn t be as identifiable if reduced to the code and would not allow proper identification of this store. Unfortunately Advance Auto Parts does not have a name such as McDonald s or Nike, which they would be able to utilize their name under your ordinance with more potential. The tremendous size of the building and the setback of the business from the roadway, the sign areas that are permitted to Advance Auto Parts store needs to be the same size that currently exists. In regarding the aesthetics improvement, you guys have copies of what the plans show what would be, I believe the improved look of the store will improve the look of the area, the business corridor it resides in. An improvement also adds to higher property costs and definitely growth within the community. Advance Auto Parts has a nationwide following due to their strong customer service and quality service and the following has lead to a large customer base that is Advance Auto Parts loyal. Loyal customers are looking for and expecting to see the upgrade look that Advance Auto Parts is advertising nationwide. The signs themselves would be a definite upgrade in aesthetics and right now they show, they are open neon, the change would a covered fluorescent lamp, it would create less of a bright glowing effect; however, the lighting would be as effective yet more subtle. Mr. Hodnett stated I ve

2 got a question for you, you had mentioned the cloud sign is to replace the pole sign, correct? Mr. Reynolds replied no, this is to replace the existing cloud signs. Ms. Nawrot stated we are refacing the ground sign that is allowed per code and the wall signs will replace the two signs that are there now, so we re upgrading the signs at the facilities. Mr. Hodnett stated so the 36 by 42 7 is exactly the same size as the open-faced neon now. Mr. Reynolds replied if you look at page 5 of 7, that s what we are here for, simple and plain, that s what you re change is, that is what exists and that is what we are proposing. Mr. Hodnett replied right and that, so basically it is going to be taking down that sign and putting basically the same sign up but it s going to have a face on it rather than an open channel with neon exposed. Mr. Reynolds replied right, there will be no neon exposure. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, now I m a little confused though, this sign though, where does that go. Ms. Newrot replied that is just a cover page. Mr. Hodnett replied oh, ok, when it said cloud sign I thought maybe you were planning on taking the pole sign. Mr. Reynolds replied wall sign, you know there is just different terminology throughout the country so Mr. Hodnett so we re just really talking about signs A1, A2 and Mr. Reynolds stated yes, we re talking about page 5. Mr. Hodnett stated and the pylon stays as is. Mr. Savoie stated but that s not going to be changed, are you going to change the appearance of the new signs and you re going to leave the pole sign with the old sign. Mr. Reynolds stated the pole sign has been Ms. Newrot stated can I answer that, what we re doing with the pole sign is we re using the same sign structure and the cabinet and we are taking off the plex with the old trademark name and replacing that with the new red and orange Advance Auto, however, we re not changing the structure, all we re doing is just replacing the sign cabinet. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, so you re just refacing it, keeping the cabinet and everything. Mr. Reynolds stated and it will match what is on the building. Mr. Hodnett replied all right, ok. Mr. Reynolds stated so you re not going to have a black sign and then have a red fascia, so it will be all in order, the same suit. Ms. Newrot stated it will match the new nationwide rebranding. Ms. Wilson stated all you re doing is changing the color. Mr. Reynolds stated essentially, yes. Mr. McNeal stated actually as long as you use the same pictures and all you shouldn t have to use Mr. Price stated he can reface. Mr. McNeal stated ok, but I mean like we ran into the situation a year or two ago with Community Bank when they wanted to resurface their clock with the message board. Mr. Hodnett stated well they wanted a bigger one though. Mr. McNeal replied ok, but they used the same shell and so they really didn t need to do nothing, I mean they re not changing the size of this. Mr. Price replied he has the right to reface as long as he leaves the same frame. Mr. McNeal stated right, so I mean on that part they don t need nothing, they ve got the right to do that, correct? Mr. Price replied that is right, that is why we re looking at just two signs here. Ms. Newrot stated right, the problem with the channel letters is we re going, we re not going with the open faced channel letters, right now we re going with three cloud signs, Advance, Auto and Parts are three separate signs that are mounted onto the building instead of each individual channel letter so we re not increasing the square footage, however we re going to have to change the actual sign structure on the building. Mr. Hodnett replied I got you. Mr. Price stated I think the question was asked involving the pole sign, this variance doesn t towards the pole sign, you have the right to do that without coming here. Ms. Newrot replied right, exactly and I think we have a permit for that if I m not mistaken. Mr. Hodnett stated so what you re saying is the current sign right now is 42 7 long and it is 3 high and basically you re coming back and the difference is you re not going to have individual letters you re going to have three words that are a sign. Ms. Newrot replied right. Mr. Hodnett stated Advance, Auto and Parts are just three signs that go up. Ms. Newrot stated exactly and the wall signs actually have a cover over them to reduce the glowing, the brightness and it would actually be a little more tamer I guess you could say. Mr. Hodnett stated yes a little subdued more, ok, all right, are there any other questions from the Board? Bo? Gary? Monica? Rudy? Are there any comments from the audience, if not do I have a motion from the Board? A motion to accept the variance request was made by Mr. Soignet, the motion was seconded by Mr. Savoie, all members were in favor. Mr. Hodnett wished them good luck. Mr. Reynolds replied thank you very much. Mr. Hodnett stated don t gain too much weight while you are here. Mr. Reynolds replied I think I already have. Item 2 was to consider a request by Barry and Esther Naquin to vary 5 from side yard setback requirement of 5 in order to allow reconstructed covered carport to remain at 600 Sycamore Street (R-3 Zoning District). Mr. Barry Naquin came forward and stated that what happened was the hurricane, I had a roof, an old tin roof and when I tore the roof off to re-roof the house I found the carport had three quarters of it rotten. What I did was build it exactly the same way it was and wanted to re-roof everything. Mr. Hodnett replied but I guess the bug in the ointment is that you didn t get a permit. Mr. Naquin replied yes, sir. Mr. Hodnett stated and right now you re over the property line and you re draining on your neighbor s property with the roof and you don t have the required setback, so those are the issues that we need to look at I think. Currently right now the existing property line is your edge of sidewalk, I mean edge of driveway, is that right? Mr. Naquin replied yes, sir. Mr. Hodnett stated because right now you re definitely draining on your neighbor s property which is against the ordinance, you can t do that. So those columns, that edge of concrete, edge of column, that s the property line running right along that point, right? Mr. Soignet stated the carport that you re building now, that carport had been existing all these years, wasn t it? Mr. Naquin replied yes. Mr. Soignet stated it s always been there. Mr. Naquin stated but when I tore the roof off that s when I found the rotten wood and I mean at that point I had to change it and what I did was build it exactly the way it was. I just put all new wood because ¾ of it was rotten from the roof leaking, the old tin roof, so. Mr. Hodnett replied right, well the old carport extended over the property line the way it Mr. Naquin replied just exactly like it is right now, all I did was put new wood, that s it. Ms. Wilson stated so you never got a permit when you had the 2

3 carport before, I mean you didn t Mr. McNeal stated it was built years ago is what he s saying, that was in existence. Mr. Naquin replied what happened was my mom passed away and I bought her house and then after the hurricane we had roof leakage so we got the insurance over and they said they were going to replace the roof. So when I tore the tin off like I said, when I got to the carport that was all rotten, that had been there for years you know, so I mean I just built it back like it was, I didn t think I needed a permit to do that. Ms. Wilson stated and that is the neighbor s house, the next house. Mr. Hodnett stated the garage for the neighbor. Mr. Naquin replied yes, that is my brother that lives right there. Mr. McNeal stated that s your brother that is there, well how Mr. Naquin stated it is Dorothy Babin that owns all three houses which we knew her all of our life, well she owns her house and then the other two houses, one which my brother rents from is her two rent houses so all three houses right there on the side of me, she owns everything right there. I had talked to her about it and she told me it didn t bother her, so I mean I didn t think about a permit, she was all right with what I was doing so I went ahead and did it and when Errol came down the street to one of our friends house, so my wife went talk to him and he said yes, so he came over and looked at everything and said yes well you need a permit, so that s when I went ahead and filed for it. Mr. McNeal stated and the lady that owns the house, you re saying that she has no problem with you building it back like it is. Mr. Naquin replied yes, sir. Mr. McNeal stated no problem with the water draining just Mr. Naquin stated well what I have, I have catch basins because where the property line is, where the drain, my daddy had a gutter right there and he had a catch basin that would drain, the gutter would drain in there and drain into the ditch in the front. All I did was just added everything, was going to replace a new gutter and make it drain all back in subsurface drainage like my dad had it, it was all subsurface drainage. Mr. Hodnett stated what is the distance from the inside face of the column clear to the house, do you know what that distance is? Mr. Naquin replied I think it is Mr. Hodnett stated and the way you have it framed, you have some rafters that are tied into some ceiling joists. Mr. Naquin replied yes, into the roof itself, the original roof, yes. Mr. Hodnett replied and those are tied in, are they tied right over that beam where the columns are? Mr. Naquin replied yes, I have hurricane straps and all of that is all tied in with hurricane straps and all. Mr. Soignet asked how long was that slab there? Mr. Naquin replied lord knows, I was born and raised right there, you know, that s been there forever. Mr. Hodnett stated so those columns are not set in the concrete then. Mr. Naquin replied no, sir, right now what I have, I have two by fours holding it until I find out exactly how I have to have them and how I have to have them anchored down, that s why I stopped at that point. Ms. Wilson asked what kind of columns are you planning on having? Mr. Naquin replied whatever I have to, whatever it calls for; you know I ll do it. Mr. Hodnett stated let me ask you, your ceiling joists, they stop at the face of column it looks like. Mr. Naquin stated the ceiling joists, yes, I only have like 3 inches of overhang, in other words when I put the gutter it is going to wind up exactly where he had it, the gutter was right on the property line and then it was draining into them drains. Mr. Hodnett stated one thing I m thinking is, what about because we had a similar case on Goode Street I think, on Goode St. where a lady had built a carport addition like this and it was extending over the property line and we had her cut along the property, well at that point she was protruding into the space, we had her cut the overhang off on her carport. That s why I m asking about the ceiling joists because the ceiling joists are running right along that post, now the other thing is would we be able, you have 11 8 you said between the two by fours holding it up and the house right now. Mr. Naquin stated the house itself, yes. Mr. Hodnett stated so in a sense you re still, you would have room and since the two by fours are not anchored to the concrete now my preference would be, though just my preference, my preference would be that we move those columns in closer to the house and cut off that overhand that we need to so that we can get that gutter. Mr. Price stated let me say something first, I just want to make sure you all understand and Mr. Barry can come and look at this picture with me if he wants, the statement was said that the posts were on the edge of the cement, I don t think that is correct because when I inspected it, what they re saying is that these posts are on the edge of your cement, actually your posts are inside the concrete, the edge of the two by facial board, the two by six is falling on the fence because when I eyed it up that is generally what we have, so the overhand itself I don t believe is over the property line. Mr. Naquin replied no it s not. Mr. Savoie stated I thought you all said that the driveway, that the cement was the property line. Mr. Price replied that is correct and that s what I m saying but the posts that he has right now, the header that he is supporting I want to say is probably 8 or 6 inside the, when I eyed it up his facial board and the fence is on top of each other, so he has the facial board right on the fence line, if that s the property line, the fence line. Ms. Naquin replied she thought the fence line is the property line, the fence is the property line. Mr. Hodnett stated ok, so the fence is the property line then, so we have a little bit to play with then. Mr. Naquin stated the fence is, I remember my dad, it s like on our property. Mr. Price stated if you look at the bottom picture right here Mr. Hodnett replied yes, that s what I m looking at, right. Mr. Price stated line up the fence and the posts and you ll see the separation that they have. Mr. McNeal stated it might be better on this top, this corner picture if you look at the neighbor with the cement, it s actually over off the edge. Mr. Hodnett stated yes, we re looking right down the fence at that point. Mr. Soignet stated the fence line is actually over your property. Mr. Naquin replied yes. Mr. Naquin stated that s your fencing, that s your neighbor s fence. Mr. Naquin replied no, that s my fence. Mr. Hodnett stated that s your fence, oh, because it looks like a gate, it looked like I saw a gate. Mr. Naquin replied yes, that s a gate that my brother originally lived in the middle house first and after his wife passed away then we rented the end house and my mom used to go through that gate right there to go and see him. Mr. McNeal stated so that garage is in your brothers place where the backyard of your brothers. Mr. Naquin replied yes, right. Mr. Hodnett stated and I guess really the garage of the brothers his facial board is almost on the property line too, he s just about right on the fence line. Mr. Price stated 3

4 I didn t inspect it but looking at the pictures I d say it would be pretty close. Mr. Hodnett replied yes. Ms. Wilson replied very close. Mr. Hodnett stated well if you just have rafters, if you just have your rafters and a facial board along that, what about if we trim, what I d like to do is have you trim that overhang, take that facial board off and just run down your rafters so that when you put a gutter, put the new facial board and put the gutter, if we drop a plumb bob from the edge of the gutter down that would be Mr. Naquin replied it would wind up where it is at now. Mr. Hodnett stated on the property line, yes, because right now if you put the gutter on it, it looks like you re going to be, according to Errol and the way it looks, the gutter is going to be over the property line and in case you know down the road whatever happens to the property, I d rather that, myself I d rather it be clear, completely clear of anything that is projecting over the property because that could be kind of hairy down the road, that could be a problem down the road if something, if the property gets sold, if different pieces of it get sold or whatever. It may not be a possibility but you know Mr. Naquin replied like I said, the lady she owns all three houses you know and I know if anything would happen it would go to the family, you know. Mr. Hodnett stated so if you don t have the ceiling joists, if you just have the rafters, then we could trim those rafters down so that when you put your gutter you re completely clear of the property line or you are right on the property line but you re not over the property line because right now if you do your gutter then you re basically over the property line and then you have. Mr. Naquin replied not really, I won t be over the property line even if I put the gutter. Mr. Hodnett stated as is? Mr. Naquin replied as it is because I built it exactly the way it was, the way my dad had it and the way the gutter was, the way everything is going to come out, the gutter is going to be right even with the property line, right on top of the fence, which from what I hear, the fence is on my property, you know. Mr. Hodnett stated well I thought facial board is property line but if you re saying that when you put the gutter then edge of gutter is edge of property line. Mr. Naquin stated I should come out right there, exactly like it was. Mr. McNeal stated I m looking at the photo, you ve got your metal shingles up on that roof on that top, huh? Mr. Naquin replied yes, well I ve got oil panel on the carport. Mr. McNeal stated but I mean it that would be a lot to cut that off. Mr. Naquin replied I would have to cut everything, all the panels, I would have to cut all the rafters, redo the facial boards Mr. McNeal stated I mean that is a metal roof, isn t it. Mr. Naquin replied yes. Mr. Hodnett replied oh, it is metal, it s not an asphalt, I thought that was just a roofing felt at that point. Mr. Naquin replied no, that s a metal roof on it. Mr. Hodnett started well to me if you re, it s not the best of situations but if you re gutter, you re edge of gutter is edge of property line, I feel better about that. Mr. Naquin replied yes. Mr. Hodnett stated I m not wild about either one of them being so close to the property line but that s Mr. Soignet stated Malcolm, I grew up in this area and I know the house quite well and if we did have photos of the existing and the way it was before, I d have to say that is probably exactly the way it is right now, so it s just the way it was back then. Mr. Naquin replied yes and you see what I did, it s my fault, I took it for granted if I built it exactly the same thing, I m thinking I didn t have, you know I do carpentry work, I work for Cajun Home Improvements, I m thinking I didn t have to have no permit because I was building it exactly the way it was, that s why I did it like that. Mr. Hodnett stated well do you all have any other comments, Bo, do you have any comments or Mr. Savoie replied it s an unfortunate situation but wouldn t it be hard for us to give a variance when you cross somebody s property line and that s just my opinion. Mr. Hodnett stated well but I think right now, we won t be crossing. Mr. McNeal replied right, he s not going to be crossing the way that is. Mr. Hodnett stated he s saying the edge of gutter is going to be edge of property line, if you drop a plumb bob from the edge of the gutter, it s going to hit right on the property line is what you re saying. Mr. Naquin replied on my side of the fence. Mr. Hodnett replied on your side. Ms. Wilson stated on this side of the fence, huh? Mr. Naquin replied yes, on my side, so it won t be, because the fence is the property line. Mr. Hodnett stated yes, that is what I was referring to Bo earlier is that I didn t want the gutter to be over the property line and if it s not going to be, I feel better about that, is there anything else. Mr. Savoie replied no, it s just a bad situation, what is in the, your brother, is that a shed or a garage. Mr. Naquin replied that is a garage, a car garage. Mr. Savoie stated just being that close to it if any kind of fire starts either at your house or at his house it s going to catch whatever is next door to it. Mr. Naquin replied yes, if my neighbor catches on fire I m in trouble too. Mr. Savoie replied well absolutely. Mr. Naquin stated because he is right on me, not my brother, I m talking about the other side he s not 3 away from me. Mr. Hodnett replied really, of course that s just the way everybody built back in those days there was no code. Mr. McNeal stated I mean we ran across this problem a few years ago with Neal, with his mom, I mean they were right next door to each other. The thing is everybody has no problem with that, it s his brother I mean I d feel better if it was his brother s house right there because that way both of them, as long as that lady has no problem with that I don t see, I m like Bo, I m not crazy about things being that close together but I mean that s the way it was built to start off with and that s just something you ve got to deal with. Mr. Hodnett stated Monica do you have anything else? Ms. Wilson stated she had no questions. Mr. Hodnett stated Rudy, an other comments? Mr. Soignet stated well again, I feel that if the neighbor had a problem she would have definitely been here voicing her opinion about it, I know her quite well also. Ms. Naquin replied she is amazed at what we are doing there. Mr. Soignet replied that s all I have to say about that, I know that is the way it was, I mean I remember the carport, that s always been there and that is the way it was in the last 30 years I guess it was. Mr. Hodnett stated are there any comments from the audience, does anybody else have anything, if not, any motion from the board? Mr. McNeal stated he would make a motion to grant him the variance to be able to go ahead and finish his roof, the motion was seconded by Ms. Wilson. Mr. Hodnett stated let s go to a vote, Bo? Mr. Savoie stated is that going to be with the gutter on property, not crossing. Mr. Hodnett replied right that would be with it. Mr. McNeal stated same like what he had agreed, the gutter was going back to the original on the edge of that. Mr. Hodnett 4

5 stated that he would be free and clear of the line. Mr. McNeal stated free and clear of the line like he said, right? Mr. Naquin replied yes. All members were in favor. Item 3 was to consider a request by Willa Mae Dickerson to vary from front yard setback requirement of 20 in order to replace existing chain link fence with wooden fencing or to move chain link fence 2 over to property line at 115 Notre Dame Street (R-2 Zoning District). Ms. Willa Mae Dickerson came forward and stated that she would like to move the fence that has been there since September 3, 1975 on the property line and the reason is the applicant s family feels that we own 2 of property on the other side of the fence that is currently being claimed by applicant s tenant neighbor. If the fence were to be moved and reconstructed under the current ordinance, the privacy and security element of its purpose would be lost. This action would allow the applicant to fully claim property that is rightfully theirs and not grant them any special conditions or circumstances. This action would in fact deescalate a growing tense situation. Granting this action will not confer to the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings of the same district. I am asking the Board on behalf of my family to whole-heartedly review and grant my request. I d like to thank you in advance for all time, efforts and resources involved in making your decision. Mr. Hodnett stated now you mentioned to re-claim the property, now as you re looking at it, the fence is, which way should the fence really be where the property line is, where should it be. Ms. Dickerson stated on the South side, 2 over. Mr. Hodnett stated ok, so as we are looking at it the property line is 2 away from the fence to the right. Ms. Dickerson replied yes. Mr. Hodnett replied ok. Mr. Soignet stated will it allow that tree standing right here. Mr. McNeal stated it would be close to that tree. Mr. Hodnett replied well probably not quite to the tree. Ms. Dickerson replied to that tree, yes it is not as close to the tree, we measured and 2 will give you just about that much from that tree that you re looking at which is a cherry tree on the South side of the property. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, now let me ask you this, the end of the fence, is that where the end, is that where the property line that runs in front of the houses, that post is that where the property line. Ms. Dickerson replied that fence is 42 long and that property measures 49 approximately length wise, width wise rather, length wise it is 110. Mr. Hodnett stated right now your fence is, so the depth of the lot is. Ms. Dickerson replied 110 x 49. Mr. Hodnett stated ok, so and the fence you said was 42 long. Ms. Dickerson stated 42 long because of the drainage that was put in at the time of the pavement of the street. Mr. Hodnett stated so you really have from that end of fence to property line is 7 more feet. Ms. Dickerson replied right but if we were to move the existing fence which has been, as they stated grandfathered there for the last 29 years, we would move the existing fence as is, that is what we want to establish the property line so that there would be no confusion as to who owns what. Mr. Hodnett stated right, I understand, that s probably not a bad idea. Mr. Soignet asked whose fence is it for. Ms. Dickerson replied it is our fence, Pete Dickerson contracted Leroy s Fence on September 3, 1975 to put that fence there because of the same reason, only he put it, at that time we weren t incorporated, we were not incorporated, Notre Dame Street was just incorporated recently. So it was put 2 on the property line. We only requesting so that we won t have any confusion as to who owns what. Mr. Hodnett replied right, that s not a bad idea I m sure. You had mentioned the wooden fencing, if we consider the wooden fencing, what do you, what is in your mind to do that? Ms. Dickerson replied ok, we would go according to whatever the City ordinance says with the wooden fence, however, we right now, the family decided that they would put that fence, should we be given it, as is and then later on if we decide to get a wooden fence I guess we d have to come back here and request for your all to review us. Mr. Hodnett stated so right now the wooden fencing, you re putting that on the back burner so to speak. Ms. Dickerson replied in the background, yes, we re going to put the fence as is and this is my sister Laura Harris who is also a witness to this. Mr. Hodnett replied oh, ok, so what you are really just proposing now rather than the wooden fencing is just to take the existing fence and move over 2. Ms. Dickerson replied well should I ask the question, should we be granted this right and we want to put a wooden fence we would have to go through this procedure again? Mr. Price replied not if you follow the ordinance as far as Ms. Dickerson replied as long as I follow the ordinance, ok, well we ll follow the ordinance, we just wanted to know if our fence could be put as is, you know, to the property line. Mr. Hodnett replied right. Ms. Dickerson stated from the street, you know, the 42 and on the property line. Mr. Hodnett replied ok. Ms. Dickerson stated and that s all my request is on behalf of my family. Mr. Hodnett stated are there any comments from the board? Mr. Savoie stated changing a fence, even though it s an existing fence, would the setback change, the setback from the road, would it change? Mr. Price replied oh, yes, that is why she is here, if she takes it down she can t be in front of the house higher than 30. Mr. Hodnett stated as a wooden fence or a chain link? Chain link. Mr. Price replied any fence. Mr. McNeal stated from the corner of the house. Mr. Price replied actually the front, the front corner, correct. Mr. McNeal stated that is where it starts from and it drops to 2 ½ and it goes to 20 from the Mr. Price replied well it depends, you see like her, she doesn t have the 20 yard setback, so she actually would measure from the edge of the house going to the rear she could put the wood fence, from the front edge to the street she would require 30 unless she would come back in front of the Board. Mr. McNeal stated if she moves this fence it would further back from the road is what you re saying. Mr. Price stated she is asking to move it as is, that s what she wanted. Mr. McNeal stated but I mean actually if she went by the new code it would move it back to that second post? Mr. Price replied just about, yes. Ms. Dickerson replied no, no, oh, that s what you re speaking about. Mr. McNeal stated I m trying to figure out what we re doing here it was kind of confusing at first. Mr. Price stated she could actually move the cyclone fence without a variance up from the 2 nd post going to the rear, that is why it is a variance for the 10. Mr. McNeal stated so she just wants to move that whole fence like it is to where 5

6 that. Ms. Dickerson replied exactly. Ms. Wilson asked to where? Mr. McNeal stated well to move it to the property line. Mr. Hodnett stated it would just slide over 2. Mr. McNeal stated without a variance she would have to move it, it would stop right here and all of this would be done away with. Ms. Wilson replied yes, ok. Mr. Hodnett stated currently the fence right now is 3 or 4? Mr. McNeal stated over 4. Ms. Dickerson replied oh yes, 6. Mr. McNeal stated that s not 6. Mr. Price replied it is about 5. Ms. Dickerson replied it is close to 5, I had the paper and I didn t bring it, yes it is 4 something, yes, you re right. Mr. McNeal stated 4 6 probably. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, are there any other comments, we ll go back to you in just a minute but we ll go ahead and go through the Board, do you all have any other comments Bo or Gary, Monica, Rudy? Mr. Soignet stated I have just one question, that shed that is in back of the trailer, that is also on that wooden fence property line, is that any where near the property that we re discussing right now? Ms. Dickerson replied what shed? Mr. McNeal stated he thought that was the back yard from the other street. Mr. Price replied no, that is the neighbors. Mr. McNeal stated that is the back yard, that is the property line of the back yard. Ms. Dickerson stated we don t have a shed that close to the fence. Mr. Hodnett stated oh, the big metal building back there. Mr. McNeal stated right but that is the back yard of a neighbor. Mr. Hodnett stated or maybe that is the rear end of a trailer or something. Ms. Wilson stated that is a back yard, he s talking about this. Mr. McNeal stated actually that is the property line of the back yard in between there. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, all right, we ll go ahead, I imagine these are your neighbors so we ll just go ahead and let them come up and if you all have any comments, come on up and state your name and address. Mr. Morris Willoughby came forward and stated I just would like to know if there has been a survey did on the land or the property. Mr. Hodnett stated well that is something that you all would have to Ms. Dickerson replied yes it has, I ve had it. Mr. Willoughby stated I do not have a paper or anything. Ms. Dickerson stated well you d have to pay for it yourself, you see this is the reason why we want that fence. Mr. Hodnett replied wait, wait, let him go ahead and talk and then we ll Mr. Willoughby stated I m not bringing this claim, I m not coming to you all for anything, if she, Willa, would have came and talked to me and showed me some paperwork, I d have no problems, I have never had problems with them. Ms. Dickerson replied that is not true. Mr. Hodnett stated let him, I m sorry, what was your name? My name is Morris Willoughby. Mr. Hodnett replied ok. My father s name is Alvin Willoughby, he is decease now, there is four of us. I had no problem if she would have came and talked to me, but we had to come up here. Show me some paperwork, if you don t show me no paperwork and you just tell me that is for you because I measured my property line from Philip Every to the fence and it is not 110 and my property is 110 x 49. Mr. Hodnett stated well let me ask you, I guess you d have to kind of compare paperwork, do you have some paperwork that Mr. Price stated this is a civil deal, we can t get involved in this. Mr. Hodnett replied oh, no, we re not, I m just kind of setting the stage for them to get on their own and hammer this out because we re not, all we can do is rule on the fence, whether or not the property line is where it is, that is not our decision and it, really it doesn t matter to us to some degree because that is something that you all have to resolve. Ms. Marilyn Willoughby came forward and stated she was Morris wife and I had applied for a fence permit before they did and it was confusion going on so I applied for the fence permit and I was going to put the fence 5 from their fence, you know to go in between to cut grass and things like that and that s when she come up with she wanted to put up a fence and move their fence over. We measured and we are missing feet of the property, our property, she says I have nothing but I m his wife and I m speaking on his behalf and mines. Mr. Hodnett replied right, I think probably the best thing for us to do is to table this and let you all, we have a surveyor sitting right in the chair, Mr. David Waitz and you can talk to him if you want to right after the meeting. But what we need to do is before we can rule on this so we know where the property line and that we ve given both parties a fair shake, that ya ll need to go back and either one or both of you all needs to get a legal survey done based. Ms. Dickerson replied excuse me, we re not complaining, we have no problem, but they re the ones complaining so shouldn t they be the ones to get the survey. Mr. Hodnett stated wait, wait, are you all finished because we ll let them come up and talk too because I just wanted you all to take turns if you would. Mr. Willoughby replied ok, but this is what I would like to know also, shouldn t they, they have more in my name on the list, shouldn t the brothers and one sister should have sent some papers been mailed to them advising them about this meeting. Mr. Hodnett replied well we don t mail out notices, what we do is that sign out in front is the notice and by law that is what Errol is required by ordinance he is required to do and that is all that he is required to do so we put that sign out and then at that point the neighbor s can read the sign and if they have any questions they can contact Errol s office or they can be here, it lets them know when they can come to the meeting and discuss those things, so. Mr. Willoughby stated ok, thank you. Mr. Hodnett stated ok, go ahead now, you had a comment? Ms. Dickerson came forward and stated ok you mentioned that we would have to get a survey of the property, you know to decide where the property line is, if we have a description, a deed to the property that measures out saying in writing the size of the property, would we still need a surveyor? Mr. Hodnett replied I think you would need to locate some fixed points that describe where the corners of your property are so that it can be completely at rest. I think if you go by your description and the only thing that you have is the description and you re measuring tape I don t think that is going to be a good idea, I think the best thing to is have someone go out like David, they can go put some stakes where the corners of your property are and then the corners are where your property is regardless of, you know, you ll have your measurement, you can go out and measure it and compare it to your meets and bounds description, but I think that would be the best thing as well as for you, as well as for your neighbor, just to have it, everybody is on the same page then and everybody knows what is going on. Ms. Dickerson replied Board of Adjustments, I just had that property reviewed, surveyed by Leroy s Fence and he told me as his measurement it was on 108, that was done 6

7 two years ago in Mr. Hodnett replied well you see Leroy is just a fence guy. Ms. Dickerson stated he s just a fence, he put the fence but that is where he did the measurement of the property and he said the fence is on 108 to the exact. I had two other men come and measure the fence also, they give it 108, we re only asking that our fence be put on it s property line, what is so hard about it, I guarantee you we won t have to dig it up. Mr. Hodnett stated it is to make sure, if there is a dispute about it I think that you all should resolve the dispute before hand and I don t think anybody on the board right now is going to even vote on this, I think we re going to table this until you all have this resolved because apparently there is a discrepancy and I think you need to have someone, a professional like Mr. Waitz Ms. Dickerson stated well since they requested the survey, shouldn t they pay for it. Mr. Hodnett replied no, you re the one who wants to move the fence. Ms. Dickerson replied I want the fence but I know the property line and the property description. Mr. Hodnett replied well that is true, there is a description but it is very possible that someone. Ms. Dickerson stated you can t imagine living beside something like what we have to live. Mr. Hodnett stated but there could be another piece of property down the road that may, that 2 discrepancy may be from the neighbor, there may be something wrong with that, the way the property is laid out. Ms. Dickerson replied it isn t. Mr. Hodnett replied well but that s why I think you need to have a survey to do it and really right now I m proposing that we table, I m going to make a motion that we table this. Ms. Dickerson asked until how long? Mr. Hodnett replied well until you have it resolved, until you have it resolved, until we know that a professional has gone out and put the stakes where the corners of the property are, I know I m not going to vote on it, I m not going to speak for the other members but I m certainly not going to vote on it if there s a discrepancy. Ms. Dickerson replied I certainly cannot see the discrepancy in there, this goes far beyond to what is being put to the desk and when I came here I thought it was such a simple matter, the description of the property had been established, the papers are assets in our family s name. Ms. Laura Harris stated if it s a matter of getting a survey and having them to come out and measure the property, it is as good as done, ok. Mr. Hodnett stated I think that is good, l that would be a good idea that way everyone would get along. Mr. Hodnett stated he would make a motion that we table this item, the motion was seconded by Ms. Wilson, all members were in favor of tabling the item. Mr. Hodnett thanked them for coming. Ms. Dickerson stated once we find out we have to come back here Mr. Hodnett replied we still have to vote on it, you have to bring it to us for a variance, now if you want to leave that 10 off, then you can move the fence, you don t have to come to us. Ms. Dickerson stated what, 10? Mr. Hodnett replied yes, the 10 that you re actually asking for, this 10 from. Ms. Dickerson replied it takes a miracle to do it, we want the fence on the property line which is to keep from looking in that ugly yard. Mr. Hodnett stated right but you see what I m saying though is that from this post back, as Errol had mentioned earlier, you re not in violation of the code, you could leave that portion, I mean you can move that as is, but from this post forward to the street is what would be in violation of code which is what you would need a variance on. Ms. Dickerson replied oh, ok. Mr. Soignet stated she d have to bring it down to 3 I think he said earlier. Ms. Wilson replied 2 ½. Mr. McNeal stated Errol up on that part, if they move that fence like that without, I mean, can they actually go and take their fence and put it right there saying that that s their property line? Mr. Price stated he would have to take their word, it s civil, if they bring it to me, they would have the responsibility if they put the fence on the wrong property and another person files a suit, that is all civil, we don t get involved, we just give a permit to put the fence and they are responsible to know if it is on the right property. Mr. Soignet stated ma am do you understand exactly what they are saying? Ms. Dickerson replied no, I don t. Mr. Soignet stated if you do move the fence on your own, we you get to the front corner of your house, you have to drop it down to 30. Ms. Dickerson stated that s what we asked to move it as is. Mr. Soignet stated that s right, you could do that legally without even coming in front of the Board. Ms. Dickerson replied pardon me. Mr. Hodnett replied well you see the front portion of that fence has to be, the code says that from the corner of the house to the street has to be no higher than 30 inches, right now Ms. Dickerson replied that is what we asked as is. Mr. Hodnett replied right, but you see that is what we re saying that if you don t move that portion of the fence that is in violation of the code, you can move the fence as is, but you can t move that distance, the 4 6 height from the corner of the house to the street is in violation of the code, whether you leave it where it is now or you move it as is, that would be in violation of the code because it is higher than it is approved. Ms. Dickerson stated that is why we came here because we wanted to move it as is. Mr. Hodnett replied right, but you d still have to come back. Mr. McNeal stated you could actually take that fence and leave it higher by the house and then drop down and go like that, you can do now but Ms. Dickerson replied no, we don t want to do that, we do not want to look in that yard, we do not want to look in that yard. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, thank you all. Item 4 was to consider a request by David A. Waitz Engineering and Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Susan Harang Savoie to vary 2 from side yard setback requirement of 5 in order to re-subdivide property at 128 & 132 Elder Street (R-1 Zoning District). Mr. David Waitz came forward and stated that he was representing Susan Harang Savoie and Ms. Bernice Harang, this is mother and daughter that live next to each other and Ms. Harang is on the corner and she is moving in the future and I didn t know that until tonight but be that as it may they want to shift the line over on her property and that is why we are here for that, requesting a variance. I don t know if you have a copy of the plat in the front, between the two houses is a fence which is basically Susan s back yard but it doesn t follow the property line and with her trying to sell the property they want to make her side line a little bit bigger. It s not for the purpose of getting a structure built or anything else it s just to shift the lot line over. Mr. Hodnett stated I had gone out and I was just curious where all of that fell, I measured the distance from face of 7

8 walls to face of wall is 13 6 more or less, the overhand on Susan s house is approximately 12 and the overhang including the edge of gutter on Mr. Harang s house is 1 6. So if we, you know going back to kind of the carport deal we had just a minute ago, if we try to hold 3 clear from edge of gutter to edge of property line, to me you d really need to ask for 4 6 instead of 4, do you see what I m saying. Mr. Waitz replied that would give how much? Mr. Hodnett replied that would give you 3, right now if we say we did it, we approved it as requested, that only gives you from gutter to property line, that would be 2 6 because you ve got an overhang now of 1 6, if we give you 2 6, to me I think. Mr. Waitz replied she still has the 5 on the other side to get the separation of 7 6. Mr. Hodnett replied yes but to me on that, if we could get, I would like to see 3 clear on Mr. Harang s side from the gutter to the property line. Mr. Waitz asked how much? Mr. Hodnett replied 3 which would be instead of 4 you d be 4 6. Mr. Waitz replied ok. Mr. Hodnett stated is that a critical dimension that you know of or Mr. Waitz replied I asked them what they wanted, you know I can t say that this is pretty much what they were requesting which I think is only a shift of the line only in the range of a foot and a half to two feet. Mr. Hodnett replied and that would give, let s see 4 6, 13 6, that would give you 9, yes that would give you 9 from the line to face of house, which any vehicle easily could, you know I don t know how that corresponds to where the gates are but from the property line to the face of the house would give you 9 to play with, 9 clear and that way if we go 4 6 instead of 4. Mr. Waitz replied so I understand it, as it states now from the face to the proposed line would be 9 3. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, well as it is now because I went out and measured it. Mr. Waitz replied I mean not as it is now but as we re proposing, we re proposing the 4 that way then 9 3 that way, that s from the face of the two buildings. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, well I just kind of put my tape measure out, so we re pretty close, I had measured 13 6 and this is saying it is so. Well that s fine, I understand what you are saying, but the overhang. Mr. Waitz replied I didn t measure the overhang or consider it, so I couldn t tell you. Mr. Hodnett replied if we could go, to me just to ensure that we have 3 clear from the gutter to the property line, if we could go 4 6 instead of 4 that would put her at like 8.75 or 8.8, do you see what I m saying, that would be just a little bit difference, that would be 8.8 from property line to the face of house and then we would have 3 from property line to edge of gutter which would be 4 6 from property line to face of house. Mr. Waitz replied all right. Mr. Hodnett stated do you think that is going to, is that 6 going to be a critical factor for her or? Mr. Waitz replied I wish I could answer that question, I mean there is a reason why she wanted that, is it to get a vehicle back there, it may be but I can t answer that. Mr. Hodnett replied well I think in the past we ve always tried to keep that 3, we try to hold that 3 in many cases in the past. Mr. Waitz replied even for the gutter, I mean that is in the gutter line to the Mr. Hodnett replied yes because that is any protrusion, any thing that projects from the house is where that setback takes effect, so if you even had a footing that went under the ground, you d still have to go from whatever project from the face of wall, the farthest point, correct Errol? Mr. Price replied only what is built as a roof, a slab or anything wouldn t count, the gutter and the box, the facial board does count. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, so the gutter will count, correct? Mr. Price replied that is correct, anything on a roof, actually the only thing he could do right here, he s asking really for is a 6 variance. Mr. Hodnett replied right. Mr. Price stated I had talked to Jim about that when he came in and he said we just measured from the building and it s not from the building. Mr. Waitz replied ok, that s normally what we do as far as, because a lot of times when we go out there and do mortgage surveys, the slab is the only thing on the ground we don t tie anything above it because it is a slab survey when we do it not the overhang unless it is like a lean too or something that is different than just the normal overhang of a house. Mr. Hodnett replied right I understand. Mr. Price replied that is the way the ordinance is written. Mr. Hodnett then asked if the commission members had any comments, if not he would make a motion that we approve it but instead of the 4 dimension given that we go to 4 6 and that would ensure that we have 3 clear from property line to edge of gutter. So I m proposing then that we grant it but instead of the 4 distance from face of building to property line we ll go 4 6. Mr. Waitz replied whatever it is it s going to be fine. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNeal and all members were in favor. Mr. Hodnett then asked if there was any further business address, if not a motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Savoie, all members were in favor. 8