OFFICIAL MINUTES BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS July 31, 2002

Transcription

1 OFFICIAL MINUTES BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS July 31, 2002 Members present: Chad Mire, Malcolm Hodnett, Robert Bell, Jan Maki, Karl Ledet and Monica Wilson Members absent: Gary McNeal Also present: Councilmen Dee Richard and Gene Richard, Kermit Kraemer, Public Works Director, Delvin Portier, Jr., Zoning Administrator and Ruby Maggio A motion to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2002 board meeting was made by Mr. Hodnett and seconded by Mr. Bell, all members were in favor. The first order of business was to consider a request by Acadia Land Surveying on behalf of Dr. Jason Ray to vary 15 from the front yard requirement on two lots located on St. Joseph Street in order to subdivide the property (R-1 District). Mr. Jules Toups of Acadia Land Surveying came forward and stated what they were asking for was to vary from the 75 requirement of the R-1 District, creating these lots they would end up with a 59 width on the highway. By doing this they were going below the requirement, however, on this street if they would grant them this, there would still be 9 lots that are narrower that the lots they were creating. He felt they were staying within the makeup of the subdivision and he would ask that they grant them approval. Did they have any questions? Mr. Mire asked if any of the Board members had any questions, if not, he would go to the audience and ask if anyone has anything to say regarding this matter. Mr. Gibbens Faucheaux came forward and stated they were here back some time when they tried to rezone the whole thing from an R-1 to an R-2 and they were still objecting to this because they thought something was not right. He had a copy, Mr. Paul Lirette, who is also a resident of St. Joseph Street couldn t be here tonight and he had a copy of a letter that he wrote, he could read it or he had a copy for all of them. (He then proceeded to pass out a copy of the letter.) Mr. Faucheaux then stated that at this time they would really like to table this thing until they found out really what s happening. They were wondering why did they want to change, at first they wanted to change the zoning from an R-1 to an R-2, which they objected because they didn t want future apartments or anything built there. They could build a house, they gave him last time permission to add on to his R-2 another 15 because he wanted to add on to his dental business and they agreed to that. After you read that letter, he thought that going to that variance thing, the 15, that is going to mess up that property. Now what was the reason of the 15, he really didn t know, nobody explained to them what was the reason for that 15, where is that 15 coming from, from the front or from the sides? If it s coming from the front, that s going to mess up everybody else s homes that are right in line, for all these years, these houses have been in line and if he s going to build further to the road then they objected to the whole thing. Mr. Mire replied as far as he could understand, it was not, what he basically wants and what he is asking for is right now you have to have 75 across the front of your property per lot. He is asking to go down to 50, no 60, he was sorry, right now if he was correct, he has 120 total going across the piece of property. Mr. Faucheaux stated in other words right now after he takes off his amount that he needs to add on to his R-2, which would be the dental office, he ends up with front and rear. Now if you re going to take off 15 more, what is that going to give you? Mr. Mire stated the only thing he is asking for is 15 front yard requirement, right now in an R-1 you have to have a minimum of 75 going across a piece of property. Mr. Faucheaux stated but isn t the front yard requirement now 20? Mr. Hodnett and Mr. Mire replied that was the setback. Mr. Faucheaux stated so where would that move that property to at 15? Mr. Mire replied it was the length of the property going across. Mr. Faucheaux replied in other words, the width of the property. Mr. Hodnett stated right as you re standing in the road, the width of the property. Mr. Mire stated it wouldn t change where he could put the sight line as far as the building, if he puts a building on that piece of property he still is going to have to be back off of the road 20. Mr. Faucheaux stated so if he divides this into 2 lots, there s going to give him what per lot? Mr. Mire replied from what he was looking at, he s going to have 60 across per lot. Mr. Faucheaux replied 60 across per lot, that s width? Mr. Mire stated that was width, going across. Mr. Faucheaux stated so what is the requirement now, isn t the new requirement to build anything there they have to have 75 x 75? Mr. Mire replied you have to have 75 across right now, that s why he s asking for a variance. The only thing they were looking at was going across right here, in other words he wants to reduce down from 75 to reduce his lots across the front to 60. Mr. Faucheaux stated so that would give him two 60 lots. Mr. Mire stated that was the only thing he is asking for. Mr. Faucheaux stated he was not too familiar with it but Mr. Paul, who wrote the letter here, he would

2 just like to table this thing until another date when Mr. Paul can come in with us and do a little bit more investigating on it, it s up to you, whatever you want to do. Mr. Faucheaux stated he thought that was just causing problems to the property. Mr. Mire asked if Mr. Toups wanted to come back up. Mr. Toups replied first of all, could we get the letter read out, so that way everybody can understand what is going on. Mr. Mire replied he could read it. Board of Adjustments Meeting July 31, 2002, Reference Item #1 Request by Acadia Land Surveying on behalf of Dr. Jason Ray, First I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting, but a previously scheduled appointment involving a large group of people prevents me from being there. Therefore I wish to submit this letter as part of the record at this meeting. Second, I have asked that the letter be introduced by Mr. Gilbert Faucheaux or Mr. Jeff Faucheaux on my behalf. The Faucheaux s are strong supporters of the neighborhood and always act in the best interest in a fair and impartial way. I want to mention that I cast objections at the last re-zoning meeting that involved the same property. My objections then were centered around parking, traffic, street conditions and deterioration, drainage and general appearance of the area. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed that a number of feet from the R-1 section of the property would be re-zoned to R-2 in order to enlarge the R-2 section of the same property. This footage would be allowed with the understanding that it would be used for the purpose of adding on to the present building located on the R-2 section of the property, dental office. This added footage would be to the rear of the dental office to allow Dr. Ray to enlarge the building to improve his business. I still offered objections if this meant that destruction of the street or if a drainage problem would be caused, if that addition would cause no problems for the neighborhood then I had no objections. My concerns on this matter still remain. Now I receive notice of the request to vary 15 from the front property on St. Joseph Street and without a clear understanding, I must again object. At the last re-zoning meeting I understood that the parcel of land involved was a single parcel which faced LA Highway 1 and that the single piece of property was placed into 2 zone categories, R-2 for the dental office and R-1 for that part at the rear of the dental office and that was the discussion at the zoning meeting when the intent was to have the R-1 changed to an R-2. That is what led to the agreement where footage of the R-1 was allowed to be changed to R-2 to allow the doctor to improve his business. I felt that in good faith and compromise worked well. Now, as I mentioned earlier, without a clear understanding, I must object to this move for the same reasons. I read the notice as to vary 15 from the front yard requirement on 2 lots located on St. Joseph Street in order to subdivide the property (R-1 District). From the re-zoning meeting to this meeting the property is now 2 lots on St. Joseph Street in order to subdivide to make more lots?. If this property is the same as was the discussion at the re-zoning meeting, then why the change in description? Can there be something we are not being told? If this is the same property and the intent is to subdivide for the purpose of building two single family structures, then my objections would be limited only by any unnamed intentions to build otherwise. And to understand that a single family structure, two of them, would be built in such a way to improve the neighborhood. The matter of varying the 15 front yard would not be a neighborhood improvement in fact alter the remaining area who had to comply with the 15 front yard requirement. While I wish to work with Dr. Ray since he is part of our neighborhood, I have not received any firm commitment of his intention. And I question what would happen if he has a change of mind after changes by this committee or the zoning committee was made in his favor. Without knowing more details, I ll conclude with this thought. Do not grant a variance without due consideration of the effects it would have on the present neighborhood (both residents and appearance). Any variance requested should be by a firm commitment. We truly enjoy our neighborhood and we hope to keep it as (or as close as possible in its present condition). Please enter this letter into your record as my thoughts and concerns for our neighborhood. Thanking you for your time and attention, I remain, Sincerely, Paul Lirette, 115 St. Joseph St., Thibodaux. Mr. Toups came forward and stated to answer one of the questions, the lot is still one lot of record, we just rezoned a portion of it where the Dr. s office is to an R-2. At the time they did the rezoning they weren t sure how the lots would fall so we just went an arbitrary distance down the side to encompass the building. He then passed maps out and what they showed was what the proposed re-subdivision is, with the two lots there and it also shows the setbacks and the floor plan of the two houses that Dr. Ray is intending to build. It shows everything that s on the property, inside the lots and within the setbacks. Mr. Hodnett stated so there s no other intentions except to build 2 houses on the lot, there s no apartments to be done, he thought at Planning & Zoning Mr. Toups replied no, they were in an R-1 and the only thing they were asking for was the variance on the lot width and he could read off who s got what lot, but he didn t think he needed to. Someone asked if the zoning would stay an R-1. Mr. Toups replied that the zoning would stay R-1. Mr. Hodnett and Mr. Mire replied that they don t change the zoning at all, they couldn t do that. Mr. Hodnett asked what would he think the average width is right now. Mr. Toups replied the average with the lots, that would be hard to say because they had one that was 35 wide and it goes all the way up to some that are 115 and 139 wide. He stated if they made this 59 there would be still 9 lots of record that would be smaller. Ms. Faucheaux asked if they could only be single floor dwellings, or is this like two story dwellings? Mr. Portier replied it could be a two story house but it can t be apartments, it has to be a single family dwelling. Ms. Faucheaux replied because when they first came in here the big thing was to rezone to an R-2 so they could remodel the office, they kept pushing to remodel the office, never ever once stated anything about what was going on with the property, that s why they wanted to be clear. Mr. Mire replied last time they came was for the zoning. Mr. Toups replied the last time they came what they wanted to do, they were going to rezone the whole property R-2 because 2

3 they were under the impression that R-2 had a 50 lot width, when they found out that it didn t, we still went through with the zoning because they wanted to put his structure and put it into the correct district. We didn t want to do resubdivision and then rezoning, they wanted to do it step by step, they wanted to do the rezoning and then they were going to come back for the resubidivision. After they were told that the lot sizes and the information that he had was incorrect they decided they had to come back for the variance and then after we get the variance we re going to go to planning the resubdivision to create. It would actually be three lots, one with his business and two individual lots of record, R-1. Mr. Hodnett replied and minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. and you re at 5,230. Mr. Toups replied yes, they would be over the minimum lot size also. Mr. Jeff Faucheaux asked if the numbers on there were just for zoning purposes only, this is the original lot dimension? Mr. Toups replied no, what they had to do was to come back to Planning to re-divide, they were showing three lots, this was the map he was creating to go to Planning but they had to have the variance for the lot size before we can go to Planning. Someone from the audience asked where they would have parking, in the front? Mr. Toups stated if you look there s a garage on the front part, there s a garage. Mr. Mire replied the little square in the front. Ms. Faucheaux asked if the garage would start 15 from the front of the property. Mr. Mire replied that would start 20 from the front. Mr. Toups replied if you see the little dashed line going around everything, those are all the setbacks. Mr. Jeff Faucheaux replied the way it was worded in the paper it was miss-leading. Mr. Mire replied if it had been like that it would have said setback. Mr. Toups stated he thought they had answered all of the questions, did anyone have any other questions? Mr. Gibbens Faucheaux replied he understood a little bit more of it but he thought they should maybe consider Mr. Paul s request until a later date, until they could get everything that they wanted to know on it. Mr. Hodnett asked Mr. Faucheaux what else did he need to know? Mr. Faucheaux replied well, Mr. Paul may need to know something, he could tell him but it was 2 nd by mouth, and he didn t really know, Mr. Paul he thought would better understand this, now if there s a letter that could be sent to Mr. Paul in reference to this, then he thought he would ok it. He just wanted to let them know that Mr. Paul couldn t come today and Mr. Mire replied he understood what he was saying but in his letter he says right here, if this is the same property and the intent is to subdivide for the purpose Mr. Faucheaux stated he had no objection, right? Mr. Mire replied yes, he was saying if it was just two single family structures, then his objections would be limited only by an unnamed intention to build otherwise, so what he gathered from it was that his concern was he was wondering what would be built on the property, not if there s two family dwellings, he doesn t object to it as long as you re following the R-1 restrictions. He really thought that if they tabled it and came back to it Mr. Paul would probably say go ahead with it because it was just some single family dwellings. Mr. Faucheaux replied yes, but he said it in his letter. Mr. Mire asked if anyone else in the audience had anything to say regarding this matter. Mr. David Duplantis of 712 E. 1 st Street came forward and stated that they lived directly across from the Texaco station and he respected the opinions that have been given today, St. Joseph Street is a nice street. In fact, he owned a home there on St. Joseph Street, his lot was 51 wide x 94 deep. He thought what Jason & Lisa were trying to do was consistent with the neighborhood. He s known Jason and Lisa all of his life and they re not going to do anything that would depredate this neighborhood, so as a landowner that is adjacent to St. Joseph Street and a property owner on St. Joseph St., he was in favor of their request. Mr. Faucheaux stated Mr. Duplantis, his name was Gilbert Faucheaux and he owned seven pieces of property, so if this is what they want and they take care of the neighborhood, no problem with him. Let me tell you what, I m getting ready to work on the fraternity house, they ve got old tires stacked up that high and he was going to get rid of that. Mr. Duplantis replied he would help him. Mr. Faucheaux stated he was going to get rid of that because they wanted to keep St. Joseph St. clean. Mr. Mire replied if no one else in the audience had anything to say, he would ask the Board if they had any comments or questions. Mr. Bell stated he had a question, Mr. Faucheaux, to all of you that are on St. Joseph Street, since we heard the statement from the last gentleman that said that he was in favor, what is your feeling? Mr. Faucheaux replied if there s nothing done unintentionally that they didn t know of, fine, because he wanted to better St. Joseph Street, he didn t want it to get into an apartment deal where they were going to have 25 more cars parked on that street and we re going to have all kind of people. He had been on that street 45 years and he raised all of his kids on that street and they kept that street up, they went up and down the street, when his kids were small and that was their punish work, they had to pick up the trash on St. Joseph Street. So he raised all of his kids there and he had several pieces of property on St. Joseph St. and all they were looking for was to keep their street nice, anything other than that, it doesn t make any difference. Mr. Jeff Faucheaux came forward and stated he just wanted to say that the house that Mr. Duplantis has was a small rental house and it was well kept, they didn t have any problem with that. Mr. Hodnett replied Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the motion that we approve the variance of 15. The motion was seconded by Ms. Maki and all members were in favor. The second order of business was to consider a request by Huey Clement to vary 10 from the front yard setback requirement, 1 from the side yard setback requirement and 7 variance from the rear yard setback requirement in order to finish constructing covered carport at residence located at 1009 McCulla Street (R-2 District). Ms. Brenda Clement came forward and stated that they purchased the residence earlier this year and it was in need of repair, both inside and outside and to finish the renovations, they wanted to put a screen patio on the side and rear of the house. She knew ignorance was no excuse, but they were outside 3

4 the city limits all of their life and they didn t realize that there was a zoning regulation concerning how far they could be from the property line. So they were requesting this variance so that they could complete the renovations on their home. Mr. Mire then asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this matter. Ms. Jeannie Thalheim came forward and stated she was representing her brother who owns the property at 750 Goode St. and he has no objection to the project that the Clements want to do, they just thought it would be a good idea to make the Board aware that the fence that currently exists between the two properties is actually set back from his property line so that on their side of the fence, there exists property which is titled to him. The dimensions of that vary from one side to the other, from the North side it s about 9 from the fence all the way to the South side, which is actually the center of his property since he has a double lot, it s about 18, so there is also some concern that if you re going to do any sort of covering to the slab that s there, that the overhand not extend over the property line. Ms. Clement replied they would make sure that it doesn t. Ms. Thalheim replied they thought it would be a good idea to just make you aware that the property line is on, somewhat distance from the fence, that s all and good luck. Mr. Mire then asked if anyone else had any comments. Mr. Hugh Songe of 1011 McCulla St. came forward and stated that his property borders theirs, the side where they want to build the patio and he wanted to state that he had totally no objections, it would not affect him in any way at all. He had no objections at all. Mr. Mire then asked if anyone else had any comments, if not, did any Board members have any comments. Mr. Hodnett asked if it was a carport they were going to build there or is it a screen patio. Ms. Clement replied it was a screen patio. Mr. Hodnett replied ok, because you had a carport on your sketch, ok. Mr. Mire then asked if someone wanted to make a motion. A motion to grant the variances was made by Mr. Bell and seconded by Mr. Hodnett, all members were in favor. The third order of business was to consider a request by Scott Dupont to vary 2 6 from one side yard setback requirement and to vary 3 from the other side yard setback in order to construct storage room at 901 Arms Street (R-3 District). Mr. Dupont came forward and stated that his request was simple, he had a shed which was built on his property 2 6 from the property line and he found out really after the fact once it had began to be built that it needed to be 5 from the line. He spoke with all of his neighbors and to his knowledge they have no complaint with it, so his request was to allow the building to stand as is. Mr. Mire then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on this matter, if not, did any Board members have any questions or comments. Mr. Hodnett replied he had one comment, from what he understood from Delvin that when it was found out that you needed to get a variance, he asked you to stop construction, but you went ahead and finished the construction on it. Mr. Dupont replied no sir, that is incorrect. We did get the variance that afternoon and we had permission from Mr. Caillouet to continue with the shed itself. Mr. Hodnett replied from Mr. Caillouet, from Mayor Caillouet? Mr. Dupont replied yes. Mr. Hodnett replied ok. Mr. Dupont s father came forward and stated that on behalf of his son, he was in California, he called Mr. Eschete and he had told us to get a variance. The building itself was built, the siding wasn t put up and he said if you re going to tear the building down, if you re going to object to it, you might as well tear the siding, we paid for the siding too already, so they said put the siding on it. So the building itself, and Delvin can tell you, was completed and we ve got pictures of the building when we stopped contract on it, we ve got it, we can show it to you where it stopped and they did put the siding on it, that s all. Mr. Kermit Kraemer, Public Works Director, came forward and stated that to clarify what was just said, is that they authorized him to continue at his own risk and that should this Board not approve the variance, that he would be required to tear it completely down. There was no variance given, he was told that he was in violation but that he could proceed at his own risk provided there were no problems and the Board approved the variance, then everything would be ok, however if it was disapproved, then he would have to tear the entire shed down. But he did have a lot of insulation, etc. exposed and he chose to continue on. Mr. Mire replied ok, did anyone else in the audience want to comment on this item. Councilman Dee Richard came forward and stated that he happened to be campaigning in the neighborhood, in fact, and he noticed, he looked over it and he didn t see a problem with it, he didn t know if the argument was that it was built and finished or not, the bottom line is that it is built and it s not a hazard to anyone. It s not a fire hazard, it s there, so he would be in favor of your granting the gentleman a variance. Mr. Mire then asked if any Board members had any comments on this matter, if not did he have a motion. A motion to grant the variance was made by Mr. Hodnett and it was seconded by Mr. Bell, all members were in favor. The fourth order of business was to consider a request by Barbara Smith to open a restaurant and a variance for parking requirements at 805 Church Street (R-3 District). Ms. Smith came forward and stated she would like to open a restaurant at 805 Church St. and she needed parking and across the street is a graveyard but it used to be a bar room a long time ago. They were renovating and they were going to do the inside, she had permission from her landlord, she was paying rent but she knew she had to go to zoning first before she did anything. She had an electrician from Thibodaux and a plumber and they said before they could do anything in the building she had would have to come to zoning and get parking because we don t have a parking lot. The restaurant is not a big restaurant, it s just fresh cooked food and they delivered and took out. It was a big building so it has a lot of space, they just needed parking along that fence because there s no fence that opens there. There s no liquor to be sold in this building at all and 4

5 no smoking, fresh food only. Mr. Mire then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on this item. Councilman Gene Richard of 516 Foret St., came forward and stated that was his district and he thought some of the residents couldn t make the meeting, their only concern was number one, would be the possibility of liquor and he thought she addressed that issue, and the second thing would be loitering and parking in excess, how many spots is she asking for? Is she asking for a parking variance, is that what? Mr. Mire replied she was asking to waive the parking and a variance, in other words, technically, on her property she had no parking. Mr. Portier stated that across the street is a no parking zone. Mr. Mire replied it s a no parking zone across the street and they can t give her permission to park there, it s a no parking zone there. Ms. Smith asked why is that? Mr. Mire replied he assumed there probably was an ordinance that was passed for no parking on that side of W. 8 th Street. Ms. Smith stated it was because when the bar room was there, and after they rezoned it, she knew. What she was saying is that it would be a good area but it s not like people would park there and stay there all day, and there s no gate there that they have to enter to go into the graveyard. Mr. Mire replied he understood what she was saying, but this Board cannot grant, there s no parking zones established, and they can t grant them a variance to allow you to park in a no parking zone. If people start parking there the police department would probably start writing tickets for parking in a no parking zone. This Board can t go on record as granting you a variance to park in no parking zones. Ms. Smith replied she couldn t understand how it s a no parking zone there, there s nothing there on that side of the graveyard, the graveyard is inside right, it s public street on the outside, the graveyard don t own the public street and they pay taxes on it like everybody else. How could they stick a no parking zone there? Mr. Mire stated he wasn t the one that established the no parking zone but he would assume that they had problems before and an ordinance was passed probably through the City Council that there be no parking on that side of the road. Until they change the ordinance or something like that, it would stay like that. The only thing they could do is grant a variance to waive the parking requirements, then your people could park wherever they could park around the building as long as they are legally parked, they could tell her that. But as far as to say this Board can tell you that you can park in a no parking zone, we can t do that. Ms. Smith replied she wasn t saying that, she wasn t ignorant to the fact, ok, it upsets her to know that you can pay your taxes here and you can t park on the side of a public street because a graveyard exists. There was a bar room there and she was glad that the bar room was gone because she didn t drink or smoke and she didn t want smoking or drinking in her establishment. She respected churches and their graveyards. It s not like it s a party over there, cooking fresh food and somebody coming in and picking up their food and going about their business is a different thing. It upsets her to know that the graveyard is on one side, people get out the car and go in that building to get them something to eat and leave, or go in to sit down and eat something and leave, they re not staying all day, so she was just saying, what is on the side of that, is somebody buried right there? Nobody s not buried on the outside of that fence there? Mr. Hodnett replied that the street was a narrow street. Ms. Smith replied it wasn t narrow, that is a wide street. Ms. Maki stated they didn t have that power to Ms. Smith replied it wasn t narrow at all because it sits across from her but she was just not understanding fully, she understood what they were saying to her, she respected that, but for her taxes, that public street belongs to the public and who did they have to see to rezone it. Mr. Hodnett stated she would have to go through Planning and Zoning. Ms. Smith then asked what was that. Mr. Mire stated that was another Board. Ms. Smith stated ok, and how much do you have to pay to do that one? Mr. Hodnett replied $ Mr. Portier replied but rezoning it would not help with the parking. Ms. Smith then asked what is the problem that they can t park there, she didn t understand, just because it s a graveyard there? Mr. Hodnett replied because there s a no parking sign there. Ms. Smith replied ok, but she was saying what is the reason? Mr. Hodnett replied they didn t know. Mr. Mire replied he probably wasn t around when they established it, he didn t know. Ms. Maki replied it looks as though it s been there for a while. Ms. Smith replied that s what she didn t get but ok, what were they going to do? Mr. Mire asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on this matter, no one responded. Did any of the Board members have any comments? Mr. Hodnett stated he had a couple of concerns, one is they really didn t have an idea of this is a big building and he really didn t have an idea of how much of that she was planning on turning into a restaurant and based on that, how much parking would then be technically required to meet the requirements. Ms. Smith replied it wasn t going to be a big restaurant, it was just going to be more or less cooking, because the area, she had a little paper. Ms. Maki asked if she could come up and show them, give them a better idea, could she show them where it would be exactly. Mr. Mire replied it was probably the section where the bar room used to be. Ms. Smith stated the corner of this building right here, this is existing, now right here on the side. Mr. Hodnett asked if she knew the square footage that she planned on building in. Mr. Portier replied it was 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Portier replied she needs 1 space for every 200 ft. Mr. Mire stated and for every 4 employees you ve got to have 1 space. Mr. Portier replied 11 spaces. Mr. Hodnett stated so Ms. Smith, going by your lease, you would be leasing 2,000 sq. ft. and you would be required 11 parking spaces and you re not providing any, right? Mr. Mire replied actually 11 off street parking. Mr. Hodnett stated you also have that mini storage there, no one can park in front of that mini storage, you have to keep that open, so the only spot you would have to park would be across the street, across Church St. by Frost Lumber and that s where your employees would park, that s where your customers would park. Where would you wind up with your deliveries, you have no place to park and the delivery truck would come through the front door or. Ms. Smith replied that delivery truck, it just depends on how many people you have, we 5

6 start delivering at 11:00, so they call the orders in and they just take the truck that s in the back right there, he said I could use the back area, he s got a big storage area, you can park a van in there for your delivery truck because she would only have one and the only time that she delivered was at 12:00 and it went from 11:00 to 1:00 and that was the end of the delivery lunch. Ms. Smith stated what else could you put there? Mr. Mire replied he didn t know. Mr. Hodnett stated an additional mini storage, Delvin stated someone wanted to put a climate controlled at one time. Ms. Smith stated grocery store? Mr. Hodnett replied it would still need parking. Ms. Smith stated grocery stores still need parking, all of it still needs parking, either way you go, it all needs parking. Mr. Hodnett stated he was just concerned about he didn t have a real clear understanding about how many people she would have in her restaurant. Ms. Smith replied it was a family restaurant, you mean sitting and eating? Mr. Hodnett replied yes, right, he just thought it would be a big impact on the neighborhood, it could be and you have no.. Ms. Smith replied no, no way, she had a restaurant before, it was right down the street, smaller building. Mr. Hodnett stated but did you have off street parking. Ms. Smith replied not really, you could drive and the street ran into the building because that was on a little street, and it was really little. Ms. Maki stated they had no way of knowing that, that was a variable none of them have any certainty about that. Ms. Maki stated Delvin she had a question for him, what if Ms. Smith went, would she go before the Planning & Zoning Commission to see about that sign, or how would a citizen go about. Mr. Portier replied she could call Tommy and find out when they did it. Ms. Maki replied that was all that she could see to do right now. Mr. Portier replied she also needs a variance to open a restaurant right there, she needs two variances, one for off street parking and one to open the restaurant. Ms. Maki replied but one is kind of contingent upon the other. Mr. Mire asked what does it mean though when it s listed on the conditionally permitted, it says indoor service only, she can t do the takeout business, he was just asking? Mr. Hodnett replied delivery versus. Mr. Portier replied probably drive-through. Mr. Mire replied he was just clarifying what they would allow. Ms. Maki replied she didn t even think she could have a window, you would have to go inside the establishment. Mr. Bell stated would you permit us to table this to allow you to look into it and come back 30 days from now and then they could make a better decision, let s table it rather than deny it. You could look into it from the parking angle and all the other angles where it would be more feasible for her to open the business. Ms. Smith replied she would have to call the man in Florida that owns the building that she is renting from because he told her to call him back since she had stopped paying rent because $ was going down the drain stopping her business and he agreed to wait until she called him back today to see what the Board said. She didn t know if it would make any difference but she had put a lot of money. Ms. Maki replied that they would like to see her start the business and this was the first time she had encountered this problem, so she thought the key to solving this was to see if that sign, maybe it s been there for a very long time, none of us knows why it was put there, but that area is no parking right now and if you re going to establish this restaurant that would have to be changed. Ms. Davis replied she understood and that was why she was trying to find out how to. Mr. Mire stated he had a question for her to, is there a kitchen there now, or are you going to construct a complete kitchen? Ms. Smith stated no, they were remodeling the whole. Mr. Mire stated because she would have to submit to the State Fire Marshall. Ms. Smith replied she knew everything, she had been there. Ms. Maki replied that she thought the key was changing that. Ms. Smith replied yes, that s all she needed because everything else, she knew what she had to do. Mr. Kraemer replied if she has street parking or not, it s irrelevant, she has no off street parking and that s out of the off street parking zone that s established in the City, it still requires a variance whether she gets it changed or whether she can get the no parking zone removed or not, she is still going to require a variance. Ms. Maki replied yes but she didn t even see how they could even begin to do that. Mr. Mire stated right now, what Ms. Maki is saying is in the situation right now, she has no parking, if she could get it removed to where at least she has spots across the street then they would grant the variance to where she could do it. Ms. Smith stated she didn t want them parking in front of anyone s driveway, it wasn t like they would be there all night, cooking early and getting through because she had 5 kids at her house to raise, she couldn t just sit at the restaurant. Proper time open, proper time closed because it opens at 11:00. Ms. Maki stated she thought that was the best way, to start with that and then they would work with her. Ms. Smith replied she needed to know how long because she had put out a lot of money and she needed to know how many days she needed to wait. Ms. Maki replied she had no idea. Mr. Mire stated if they tabled it, it would be 30 days, it would be until their next meeting, the last Wednesday in August. Ms. Smith replied ok, she would do that and she would call him and tell him, thank you. Mr. Hodnett made a motion that they table the item until the next meeting, it was seconded by Ms. Maki, all members were in favor. The fifth order of business was to consider a request by Angela George to place mobile home on lot located at 615 Poplar Street and to vary 10 from the minimum front yard setback requirement (R-3 District). Ms. George came forward and stated that she lived at 307 Isle of Cuba Road in Schriever. Mr. Mire stated you were basically asking for a mobile home and the 10 variance from the front yard, correct? Ms. George replied right, there was a mobile home there before, it was already set up for a mobile home. Mr. Mire asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on this item. Ms. George s father stated he was the owner of the lot and they needed her because they were getting old and they lived right next door. Mr. Mire stated if no one in the audience had any further comments, did any Board members have any comments? Mr. Mire asked what size was the mobile home. Ms. George replied it was 16 x 80. Mr. Portier stated 6

7 it would be lined up with the white house and that is where 10 falls from the front of her property where the fence is. Mr. Adley Landry stated he wanted to say that the piece of property is on a dead end street and coming up 10 from the 20 should not be a problem because there s not that much traffic on the street. Mr. Mire asked if anyone else had any comments, if not, he would ask for a motion. Mr. Hodnett made a motion that they approve the request, it was seconded by Ms. Maki, all members were in favor. The sixth order of business was to consider a request by Louis Ordoyne to park recreational vehicle (camper) in front yard located at 611 Willow Street (R-3 District). Mr. Ordoyne came forward and stated that he had lived 44 years where he was staying at and he has had a trailer there for about twenty something years and he never had any complaints on it. Now he has a neighbor that has been doing him all kind of stuff for years now, if he washes his car in the road, she calls the cops, he puts garbage on the side of the road, she calls the cops, he has a neighbor from hell, believe you me and he has never given anybody trouble, he raised a family there. He has pictures and before he showed them the pictures, he wanted to tell them, he had a 10 area between his house where the City wants him to park his trailer, it was a fire hazard, he can t get around his house. He had a handicap sticker, he couldn t back up like he was 26 years old and the last time he backed up he hit the fence. The fence is on the property line, the fence was knocked down during a hurricane, they ve got it tied with a rope. The house is draining on his property, she has no, he understood that you could get grandfathered in, she s built right on the property line, draining on his property and he s never gripped or said anything about it, he could go to civil court and probably still can t do anything about it, but it was going where he didn t need this kind of trouble. He had a bunch of pictures here if they wanted to look at them (he then proceeded to pass them out to the Board members). One of the first ones it was parked where the City wants it parked at, a fire hazard, he couldn t get into his camper unless he cocks it a little bit, he has to park it perpendicular. To him, he didn t need this kind of harassment and they have automobiles parked in front of houses, they ve got boats parked in front of houses across the street, they ve got a tent parked across the street, this is a dead end street, this is not a historical site, this is a working man s neighborhood. When they bought there, they didn t have anything and they still didn t have too much, but he wanted to keep what he had and he wanted to be able to do a little bit on his own property. Mr. Hodnett stated, Mr. Ordoyne, that chain link fence that they saw on the neighbor s, that s the property line, is your property line in line with the chain link fence? Mr. Ordoyne replied right, it was perpendicular with the house and he didn t see why, he had asked Portier years ago what perpendicular meant, why didn t they just say run it parallel with the property line, he didn t know what it was. He stated he would like to ask a question, this morning he was called and it was said he didn t have to be here, what would have happened if he wouldn t have come? Mr. Mire then stated they would have looked at everything that they were presented and they would have made a decision on it or they could have possibly tabled it until the next meeting, that is what they normally did, they normally tabled it if someone didn t show up. Mr. Ordoyne replied because he was called saying he didn t need to be there, but he was concerned about his property and his belongings. He noticed that none of the neighbors have come and he had questioned some of the neighbors in the neighborhood and they said they saw nothing wrong with where his camper was at and most of my neighbors that he used to have, they can t come up, they are dead and he had questioned 5 or 6 neighbors already and they said they have no objection, they said you ve been having it there, why not let it stay there, who is giving you trouble? Ms. Maki stated she had a question for you, these pictures show the trailer being in front of the house, is that, are you asking to keep it here. Mr. Ordoyne stated he wanted to keep it right where it is at because he could back up into here, he couldn t back up on the side. Mr. Portier stated the reason he asked him to table it was that they were waiting for a ruling from the City Attorney on it about blocking the view, about the vision and that s why they were talking about tabling it because he had talked to Malcolm because they were waiting on the City Attorney and if you want them to rule, they can rule right now. Mr. Ordoyne replied that he wasn t blocking views, and they don t take into consideration people that are handicapped, none of the ordinance that he read takes any consideration about handicap. There s also people that own property that are handicapped, they can t do what they used to do when they were 26 years old, he was 26 yrs. old when he moved there, he could jump a barbed wire fence and now he can t even get under it. Mr. Adley Landry came forward and stated that this subdivision was established back in the 40 s, a long time before City ordinances came about for zoning and if you look at this thing, you re just gave a variance to the lady a while ago for a trailer to be 10 from the front property line, if you look where that trailer is at they have more than 10 and if he puts it on the side, you being a fireman, know how much of a problem that would be. Mr. Mire replied he didn t like it on the side. Mr. Dee Richard came forward and stated that he had seen the property and he thought that the gentleman had a case, he has seen it where it s parked and he had walked in his front yard and it s definitely a fire hazard and he didn t have a problem with him where he wanted to park it, he knew there were other areas in town and he wasn t faulting Delvin for this. He knew of some other places where they ve tried to get parked cars that are abandoned out of lots and it s hard, it s hard for him to do it and it s hard for this Council to do but I look at his position, he s got a trailer, it s a workable trailer that he pulls in and out of the yard and he couldn t see a problem with that, so he would be in favor of a variance on it. Mr. Portier stated the reason he is in front of the Board is because he had a complaint about it, so he either had a choice of moving it or to get a variance so that s why he was in front of the Board. Mr. Richard replied that he understood and he knew that 7

8 he was waiting on a ruling but he couldn t see where it was blocking views of people backing out, it was far enough off of that road and he had walked it off himself, so he didn t see a problem with it. Ms. Maki stated now when you say blocking views, does that mean like from here out to the street they way it s backed out right now, is that what he s saying? Mr. Mire replied it was not backed up, right now it s across the front of his house. Mr. Ordoyne stated it s parked in front of his house he had a long stretch where he could come in and it was not blocking her view or nothing, he was 10 off of the street and he would like to put it further. He couldn t even get into his camper, he had a slide out and he couldn t even pull out his slide out where he was at and he liked to take care of his house and his camper, he couldn t wash nothing, he couldn t get in between. If a fire starts in the back of his house or on the other side, hey, he couldn t jump a fence and his wife couldn t jump either. Ms. Maki stated Delvin, I missed that part, what did you say, you were waiting on the City Attorney to rule what, now? Mr. Mire replied what are they actually waiting on the City Attorney for? Mr. Portier replied about the blocking of the view because of the definition as yard as he showed them on page 32, but he had a complaint and that s why he was before you. Mr. Gene Richard came forward and stated he understood that Delvin had a complaint but it looks like the person that would have complained would be here tonight if it was that big an issue and it appears to be some fussing and some feuding going on and he thought it was time for everybody to compromise and he thought the gentleman here is getting up in years. Apart from the view Delvin do you see any other problem with that, is that the only ruling you are waiting on? Mr. Mire stated he had a question, they way it s parked right now. Mr. Portier replied that was according to the ordinance. Mr. Mire replied right, it s parked in the front yard right now, what is she complaining about, she doesn t want it parked in the front yard at all, is that what it is? Mr. Portier replied yes because she knows that there s an ordinance that says you can t park it in the front yard, you ve got to step it back 11, if you don t have room in the back of your property to put it under a cover, then you ve got to step it back 11 from your property line. Mr. Mire asked how many feet from the front property line to his house, do you know? Mr. Portier replied well he is 8 now where the trailer is at. Ms. Maki replied instead of 11 he is 8. Mr. Portier replied yes. Ms. Maki stated so really what they would be doing is giving him a variance of 3 is that correct? Mr. Hodnett stated it was not like these pictures, it was parked parallel right now, he went by this afternoon. Mr. Ordoyne replied right he was getting ready to move to go camping, this camper doesn t stay here twelve months out of the year, we go spend a month in Tennessee, a month in Arkansas and all, we move out. The way it is there now when he s got to park that camper, he hit that fence already, it s on the property line and she wants me to put a whole new fence there because of a little piece that much and he was too old to move, so he had been here long enough he thought he grandfathered in a long time ago and he was almost great-great grandfather now. Mr. Mire asked how wide was his camper. Mr. Ordoyne replied it was 8 ½ wide. Mr. Mire replied ok, and he s got 11, how far from the property line to his house? Mr. Portier replied it was 8 now and he s probably got 11 to 12. Ms. Maki replied just the house, not the trailer being there. Mr. Ordoyne replied and they have a fence right there that s got that mesh in it, it was a 6 fence. Mr. Hodnett stated and the way you have it parked now, you have it parallel to the street. Mr. Ordoyne replied right. Mr. Hodnett stated and when you park it, you won t, if you get the variance, it s not going, you re not going to park it past that property line and park it on the City servitude at any time. Mr. Ordoyne replied no, he had never parked it on the street, he was always parked on his property. Mr. Hodnett stated because that may be, maybe that s where the complaint maybe came where there was some idea that he might come closer to the street. He stated there s many campers in the area and many campers all around town, they re parked on the street and he wasn t fingering anybody but it seems to him for 20 something years he never had complaints, why now? Mr. Hodnett asked if that was the same neighbor he had all those years? Mr. Ordoyne replied no, this neighbor moved in, these people here, there was a feud between her sister, years ago he came there and she used to come at the house and they drank coffee and everything there and stayed right there and he ran them out of the house, he said his wife has work to do, she does not have all this time to socialize and all this stuff. So it took over, when they moved in he asked them, if you don t mind you re on the property line with your house, would you put gutters on the carports so I don t get the water on my property. He told me to go to hell, he said if you don t like it come on the road, look I m getting old, 20 years ago he wouldn t have had to tell him that. He didn t like to be cursed out by somebody that s my neighbor, he was brought up and he brought up his kids to respect their elders and to respect their neighbors. Mr. Mire asked if the Board wanted to wait on the attorney s opinion or did they want to rule on this tonight. Ms. Maki asked he s giving his opinion on what exactly, what is the opinion that we are seeking from the City Attorney? Mr. Portier replied if you look at the ordinance on campers and parking in the front yard, there s nothing to say about the sight view and everything else, if you go under the definition of yard, they ve got visibility and if you read the definition, so he s going to let us know which one is going to prevail. Mr. Mire replied we have like a conflict, in one section it says this and on this side it says you can t have it. Mr. Portier replied to be honest with them, he didn t know how to enforce this, they ve got them all over Thibodaux and he gets complaints about it, he s got a complaint on Julia Street and he didn t have anything to enforce it. Mr. Ordoyne replied he would think if they had a complaint there they should have been here tonight, nobody came out here and said anything. Mr. Landry replied if you d put that trailer up on blocks, you d have a different situation. Mr. Ordoyne replied that was right, then it would be a permanent structure. Mr. Mire replied he was just looking at, when he went by today and he looked at the trailer parked across, there s no sight obstruction, if the person is backing out of their driveway, they can still see, probably all the 8