The Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, September 17, 2007. In attendance were Mr. Monnett, Ms. Duffer, Mr. Gibbs, and Mr. Matrana.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals of August 20, 2007 as submitted. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first petition before the board tonight concerns Larry Fitzgerald, BZA-07-022.
Mr. James said it looks like the petitioner has not arrived yet so with that I would recommend that we continue this request until the November meeting.
Mr. Carlucci said I would like to make the suggestion that we continue with old/new business and if he does not show up by then, we can continue it.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. James said with that we will move onto old business. If you recall, last month we approved a Special Exception and a Variance of Use to allow a 4,500 square foot expansion to an existing self-storage mini-warehouse facility at 4586 S. CR600E. The expansion is going to be to the back of the preexisting building. They are going to extend the buildings about 50 feet to the rear and at that meeting there was no remonstrance. It was approved with some conditions. On the memo of the approval letter is Exhibit 1 with the four conditions. One of the conditions that an acceptable drainage plan was to be filed with the Town Engineer that complied with the Town drainage standards. To make a long story short they have proposed a drainage plan that the Town Engineer has agreed to. They are going to do like a French drain from the back of the building around the side to CR600E. Because they now have to do the drainage plan it has increased the scope of the proposed expansion. When they first filed, they did so thinking that they had to comply with the AG District setback of 50 feet to the rear and for the side but as an existing nonconforming use it would not comply with the south setback of 50 feet. So, knowing that we rezoned this parcel from AG to General Commercial and that was approved by the Town Council. So, when it was rezoned from AG to General Commercial, it reduced the side and rear setback from 50 feet to 10 feet. So, now the site is more complying as an existing use with the new General Commercial zoning. After the rezoning was done and knowing that they had to do the drainage plan they took another look at their expansion. So, now what they would like to do is expand another 40 feet in the back; almost the three existing buildings. I provided you with a new site plan that shows what they are now proposing. Since there was no remonstrance at the previous meeting after talking with Mr. Cooper I told him we would bring this back to the board under old business and see if we can expand the site plan and the scope of improvements for this project. So, that is what this request is to expand the site plan and the scope of improvements that were originally approved.
Mr. Matrana asked, did Staff have any objections to the proposed expansion?
Mr. James said no. With the additional 40 feet it requires more foundation landscaping so we provided another tree to the north and south perimeters. They are still going to leave enough room in the rear of the property to leave some existing trees out there to help screen the rear of the property. The Town Engineer did not have any problems with the increased square footage.
Mr. Gibbs said on the very west end of the proposed buildings there is around a 20 foot drive and then the drainage. Did Mr. Belcher feel like that was enough space for them to turn trucks in around without doing any damage to that drainage?
Mr. James said for one way routing the ordinance only requires 12 feet.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. James said Mr. Belcher doesn't have any comments about that.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible). Should you explain to everyone what the French drain is?
Mr. James said it is a sub-surface drain.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. James said there is a representative from Morton Builders here and maybe he can answer that question.
Mr. Kent Cooper said in regards to your question about the drive you are correct and it is a little bit tight but we have sufficient footage to bring the radius of the driveway out past the building and I anticipated doing that anyway. With doing that it will move the French drain over as well but the engineer preferred having the drain close to the driveway so that it catches the water at least on that end.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open it up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve BZA-07-018 Plainfield All-Stor located at 4586 S. CR600E to request to amend site plan approval with a Special Exception to allow a larger expansion of the existing self-storage mini-warehouse units. Second by Ms. Duffer. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Ms. Duffer – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – absent
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said our next item under old business concerns BZA-06-029. The petitioner was Mr. Norman Albershardt for an expansion of a garage at 37 Butler Drive. This came before the board almost a year ago in November 2006 to expand a garage and the variance was to have more accessory space than living space for the lot at 37 Butler Drive. Mr. Albershardt had started the expansion of the garage I think without a permit and not knowing the expansion was illegal because of the Zoning Ordinance requirement about the ratio of accessory space and living space. So, once he was informed that this was a violation he filed for the variance and the variance was granted with the condition the building permit would be obtained and also the center storage space for the garage would be reserved and used by the renters of the house. Mr. Albershardt got the building permit for this garage expansion but somewhere along the way there was a miscommunication and Mr. Albershardt had thought that the variance gave him the right to convert this into a living space. The department was informed of this violation. Bret Smith, the Residential Building Inspector went out and did an inspection and did find that the garage was being converted for living space. So, we sent Mr. Albershardt a letter and told him to stop all work on the property until this could be resolved. We thought the best way to do it was to invite Mr. Albershardt to the board tonight and let him explain his situation and why he was doing what he was doing. Also, I think we have some code violations. Mr. Smith noted the following violations: ceiling height is below minimum standard of seven feet; the rise of the steps was too high; no smoke detectors and the sleeping room egress did not comply with the minimum opening dimensions. The Town Engineer got involved and he brought up another concern, which was the sewer connection. I believe at the night of the hearing of the variance Mr. Albershardt reported, as noted in the minutes, that the laundry room and shower were existing. Knowing that the Town would like to know how the connection was made from the house to the garage? It may require its own water and sewer and water meter pit, which would also require a tap fee. We have several issues with this conversion and I will let Mr. Albershardt come to the podium and explain his situation.
Mr. Norman Albershardt said I know it is very serious business and I want to assure you that I am extremely sorry that legal things were done in my name and I didn't in any way attempt to usurp the authority of the board or of your rules and regulations. I do have to tell you a little bit about the problem that I have, which might explain my inattentiveness to the errors. I have a two year old woman at home in a 71 year old woman's body. My wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's a little over a year ago and it has progressed or digressed however you want to say it rapidly. It has required a great deal of my time and I wasn't able to follow what was going on. To answer a question about sewage and the water source when I bought the building and garage, there was a shower, washtub, I mean an automatic washing machine and a dryer and a toilet and a slop sink was all right there in that one northeast corner of the building to start with. Out in the garage portion, out in the drive-in portion of the garage, there was a large sofa, which was being made into a bed at nighttime and folded up during the day. So, it was pretty obvious to me that this was already a living quarters. There was an electric range there even not plugged in at the time and there was an old oil fired big ole pot belly forced air heating system there. It looked to me like it was already set up for living quarters. In talking with some of the neighbors they indicated that there was a gentleman that used to be an 18-wheeler truck driver over the road that had retired and was working on the tractors for various old different friends of his in that business. That is why all of the old pavement on the east side of the garage was completely paved over there so they could park their trailers while they were working on the tractor. There is a grandfathered clause of all those other doubles that are on Michael Drive and on Omega Drive. Their doubles are on the same property so I thought this ought to be grandfathered in also. My 200 foot deep property and 65 foot wide could easily be split in two zones, which would give you two tax sources too. I will follow your recommendations and I will definitely bring things up to code. Regardless what you decide tonight I would like permission to go ahead and do what I started to do and that is protect the interior of the garage by repairing the roof. That was the main thing that got us started after we built the garage that we got permission to build, continuing to build that extension to the garage but the roofing we noticed and the wood material directly under the roof before the rafters, the sheeting had started rotting; you could see it from the bottom. I would like to have permission to start back and get the workers back over there before the snows come because it would ruin everything in the garage. Whatever we can work out I would happy to be at your disposal as soon as I can get there.
Mr. Matrana said when you came to the BZA back in November, did you express to the board that you wanted to expand a garage and you wanted the garage to be for storage? You didn't say I want to have a living area with smoke detectors and bathrooms and kitchens and stoves and things to live in; you specifically said to expand your garage and a garage does not have living space in it. Is that what you indicated to the board back in November?
Mr. Albershardt said yes and I indicated I needed the additional storage space that was there because the tenant wanted to store things; they don't have enough closet space and enough space in the house itself to have all of the things in there.
Mr. Matrana said in November we gave you permission to expand a garage. The garage would not allow people to live and sleep.
Mr. Albershardt said but what I wanted was an office. That was the main thing that I needed and I thought I had that already because it was already existing in that portion of the garage. It had the furnace to keep the pipes from freezing.
Mr. Matrana said but you didn't mention the word “office at all.
Mr. Albershardt said no but it was there already; I just wanted to remodel it.
Mr. Carlucci said I think everybody can appreciate the situation with your wife. There are people here that have either had someone with bad health as a family member but as far as the property is concerned the BZA is not in a position tonight to authorize you to continue to convert that into a residential property. Secondly, the fact that was there doesn't mean that it was legal to do that before you got the property to begin with. You typically find violations like this because somebody complains. How long have you had this property?
Mr. Albershardt said going on four years but this was 1950 when the owner put his bedroom in the garage and the furnace and all the plumbing and sewage.
Mr. Carlucci said it was all one piece of property.
Mr. Albershardt said right.
Mr. Carlucci asked, did he live in the house?
Mr. Albershardt said I don't know if he lived there and rented it out; lived there or rented it out. There was evidence that he had lived in it.
Mr. Carlucci said since then you have zoning, you do have a neighborhood that probably had approval to put doubles in it (inaudible). So, the situation here is clearly we thought why you were here really had to do with your office space and it was simply omitted about what the rest of the plans are. But again it is a situation that the BZA has no authority to authorize you to do that tonight. All they can tell you is (inaudible) and do what you said you were going to do when you came in for the variance. Then if you want to try to do something else, you will have to come back in.
Mr. Albershardt said I assumed that I would have to come back anyway but I wanted to find out if I can at least go back to repair the roof so that it protects everything.
Mr. Carlucci said I don't imagine that would be a problem.
Ms. Duffer said no because you talked about it in the original minutes that you were working on the roof to continue to do so assuming that has not been completed, (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible). What you can do is continue to do work on the other areas of the garage (inaudible).
Mr. Albershardt said one other thing besides the roof is the furnace to keep the pipes from freezing is all set and ready to be turned back on. I had it on last year but I was planning on making it so that it had duck work up to my proposed office, which I won't do that until we get permission to make a proposed office if, in fact, we get permission, but I would like to go ahead and fix the furnace. It is a gas fired furnace and it has a no standing pilot. It fires up only on a call for heat.
Mr. Gibbs asked, is the furnace in the old part of the garage?
Mr. Albershardt said yes.
Mr. Gibbs said it's in the original part of the garage and that is where it is going to remain?
Mr. Albershardt said yes.
Mr. Gibbs said I see that as a repair.
Mr. Albershardt said okay; thank you very much.
Mr. James said I would like to offer one resolution. Mr. Daniel can we alter the original conditions?
Mr. Daniel said it depends on what you are suggesting.
Mr. James said that we make a condition that the improved area is only for an office and not for a dwelling.
Mr. Daniel said I could be wrong but when I read the minutes, I didn't hear anything discussed about an office. All I heard anything discussed about was creating some additional storage. (Inaudible). So, I think all he is entitled to do now without another petition and another public hearing is the additional storage area and roof repair but beyond that I don't believe he is authorized to do anything else.
Mr. Monnett said and with the proper permit.
Mr. Matrana said I think we are going to make some sort of motion to allow you to continue to repair the heater and repair your roof.
Mr. James said I have somebody in the audience who would like to speak.
Mr. Matrana said this is a public hearing so if there is anyone who would care to speak about this petition, please tell us.
Ms. Sandra Czajkowski at 1 Michael Drive said my house faces the garage, the garage part where the addition is, the third bay is complete. My only concern is if he is allowed to fix the roof and it is already roofed, does that mean he is going to expand and make all his adjustments to meet the height requirements? If he works on the roof, they are going to go ahead and take off what they have already put on. That is my concern is they are going to meet code without going before you for the variance if you allow him to fix the roof. There is already flooring done; everything is sealed; why would they need to put the roof on if the roof is already up and the wood is up on the roof? Everything in the garage is going to be protected. The additional part is already done.
Mr. Matrana said so in your opinion he does not need a new roof.
Ms. Czajkowski said no I do not see where he needs a new roof. I don't see why allowing him to put the roof now before he has a new zoning how that is going to affect………
Mr. Matrana said so what you think might happen is he will take off the old roof and put on a new roof.
Ms. Czajkowski said he will make his height requirements without having to go through you guys to get the height requirements. I have seen it all summer. I have seen him there all summer. He says his wife is sick; I know she is sick but he is there almost every day. I've dealt with it. I deal with all of the mess, the yard not being taken care of, the weeds, all of that faces my house. All of us on our street take pride in our neighborhood. If he had to live there, would he want this going on in front of his house?
Mr. Matrana said so he doesn't live there.
Ms. Czajkowski said no, it is a renter; that is a rental property. That is my concern; he doesn't live there. He is not the one that has to see the mess everyday, the yard not taken care of, the in and out of all of the construction, the noise, the additional parking if it is allowed, and I don't see it being an office to be honest. I see it being additional housing and it would affect my neighborhood, my house, my property value. I have lived there four years. I have a new neighbor; she has only lived there a little over a year and it would affect hers as well. Her house is next to mine; it faces the same thing. Do we want that? I mean it is not right for us to have to look at that; to have all of that additional traffic if it is allowed to be made into an additional house or apartment; that is my major concern.
Mr. Matrana asked, have they started a new roof already?
Ms. Czajkowski said yes; that's just it. Their walls are up, the roof is up, there are windows in, they have put carpet in.
Mr. Matrana said so it kind of looks more like a house than a garage.
Ms. Czajkowski said correct. It looks more like a house than a garage. There are the three bay doors for the garage and then there is a door that goes upstairs so when I saw carpet going upstairs, I knew deep inside that that was what was going on. I will admit to Norman that I made the phone call because it affects my house. Thank you for listening.
Mr. James said I believe her concern is that if he buttons up the roof, that the ceiling height is still going to be in violation, it is still not going to meet the seven foot requirements. They are going to have to get a variance from that standard or come back and re-roof it so that it will meet the ceiling height. So, what is the point in completing the roof if he may have to redo it anyway? I don't have a problem as far as buttoning up the roof to keep it from leaking this winter.
Ms. Duffer asked, didn't we already approve that in the initial hearing; that he could go ahead and complete the roof?
Ms. Czajkowski said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci asked, did they increase the pitch of the roof?
Ms. Czajkowski said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci asked, did they make the walls higher?
Ms. Czajkowski said (inaudible).
Mr. Monnett said so they have gone up in elevation.
Mr. Gibbs said here is my interpretation of what I have heard this evening. Verbally we have kind of talked about the approval for him to fix this roof is on the existing garage. We haven't really talked or given any indication of the new construction portion except to say that it is in violation because of no permits.
Mr. James said and of the Zoning Ordinance if it is converted.
Mr. Gibbs said so at this point if that new section is not roofed………
Ms. Czajkowski said the new section is roofed.
Mr. Gibbs said I'm just saying that nothing should go on until the proper permits are obtained and they have to follow within the guidelines that have been stated or it is in violation.
Mr. Albershardt said the roof that she is talking about on the new section that was taken care of yes; it is all finished but that is on the third garage, the garage that we got permission last November to increase the footprint of the building on the east side. That was taken care of but the old part of the garage is an extremely high part. We didn't raise the roof on it. We have put some dormers so we have better lighting up there, daytime lighting. There are window dormers and that part was roofed. That is why and how we discovered the condition of the sheeting whenever we cut in the triangles in order to pop or bump out the dormers. We have one dormer on the west and two on the east and we don't have a dormer on the south or the north. We do have a window on the south but that is a flat portion of it that didn't require a dormer there.
Mr. Matrana said but you need to do more work on the roof.
Mr. Albershardt said on the old building, the 50 year old portion of it, new sheeting and new roofing on it.
Mr. Daniel asked, you aren't going to change the pitch or anything?
Mr. Albershardt said correct. There is no need to change the pitch. Eighty-five percent of the office area upstairs, carpet yes in the office, nice. There's an average of over 85% has a seven foot clearance but that is because of those dormers coming in. It is there but we will talk about that after we get the urgent part done and that is the heating and repair of a 50 year old roof.
Mr. Matrana said so tonight you would like to ask for two things; to repair your heater and to repair the original roof.
Mr. Albershardt said that is correct.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Monnett said I'm beginning to have second thoughts on the roof because they have just said that they are modifying the old roof to accept dormers, which tells me everything should stop until you meet the Town's requirements.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible). I think the problem here is the petitioner has failed to tell us everything that this board needed to make decisions. I'm not saying that he is being dishonest; that's not my point. The point is he left information out that we needed to know. In terms of converting that he cannot convert that without going in and getting a variance to convert that to residential property. If he does, he would be subject up to $2,500.00 a day in fines. I don't think anybody wants to do that but he also talks about the heater but even if he repaired that, are pipes in the top floor now, the very top?
Mr. Albershardt said there is no piping up to the top floor.
Mr. Carlucci asked, did you want to extend it up there?
Mr. Albershardt said at least to the bathroom portion of it because that bathroom is directly over the existing bathroom, which will be heated.
Mr. Matrana asked, did I hear you say you added an additional bathroom to the garage that we thought was going to be a garage? Are there two bathrooms in this garage now?
Mr. Albershardt said they are stacked on top of each other yes; there is a second floor.
Mr. Matrana said we didn't know about the extra bathroom either.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. Daniel said if you weren't authorized to do that, then you are not authorized to put heat up there.
Mr. Albershardt said but can I go ahead and keep the heat in my first floor bathroom.
Mr. Daniel said whatever is existing now but any additional construction (inaudible).
Mr. Matrana said Mr. James I might be a little bit confused on how we should make a motion for the illegal conversion of the garage tonight. The motion would be to stop the illegal conversion.
Mr. James said yes and we can add that repairs can be made to the existing roof into the existing heating system on the first floor and he needs to get a permit.
Mr. Monnett said I have no problem with repairing the existing furnace but it is all a big can of worms.
Mr. Matrana said we didn't know there was another bathroom in a garage.
Mr. Monnett said I guess I was reading that it was a laundry room.
Mr. Matrana said we didn't know about the dormers, the roof, the carpet in the garage, we didn't know about that.
Mr. Monnett made a motion that BZA-06-029 cease construction until proper permitting is obtained from the Town and that roof repair and heating can be repaired in the existing portion of the garage. Any modifications to that would have to come back to the BZA. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Ms. Duffer – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – absent
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Daniel said Mr. Albershardt I would suggest that you work very closely with Mr. James (inaudible).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana said Mr. James I believe we have a final matter before the board concerning Larry Fitzgerald, BZA-07-022.
Mr. James said that is correct; we need to take care of a couple of things. Before we begin I think Mr. Fitzgerald needs to be sworn in.
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. James said there was an error that occurred in the legal notice; we put the wrong date in there but we caught the mistake last week and I was able to contact the newspaper and get the correct date in there last Tuesday and Wednesday. So, I guess we should waive the rules and allow this petition to be heard without the required 15 day notice.
Mr. Carlucci said the original notice required 15 days but was that June 18th?
Mr. James said yes June 18th was the old date.
Ms. Duffer made a motion to waive the rules to allow this petition to be heard without the required 15 day notice. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried.
Mr. James said this request is to allow a trash compactor in a fenced enclosure to be within the side yard setback at the Shrum's Woodland Trace Mobile Home Park at 3603 S. Clarks Creek Road. This was placed in the setback some time in 2006 we believe; that is when we observed it and we contacted Mr. Fitzgerald and told him that it was placed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The mobile home park is zoned General Commercial so it is a legal nonconforming use and it was developed prior to our existing zoning code so if this were new construction, we would have a 20 foot wide bufferyard between the property line and the Crown Plaza Apartments, which is the adjoining use to the south. The apartments are zoned R-6. Here is Woodland Trace so we should have had a 20 foot bufferyard here but we don't because it was developed prior to the existing Zoning Ordinance. The trash compactor was placed within the side yard setback, which is 10 feet in this area right here, which is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. You can't have structures or machines like this in the side yard issue.
One issue is the proximity of Crown Plaza Apartments right here. It doesn't cause any impact to Crown Plaza. I know in the findings of fact the petitioner states that it is only operated during daylight hours. Here is the site plan. He is now proposing to do a fence around the trash compactor to be nine feet high. He would use existing fence back here as one side and then fence it on these two sides and across the front and leave a gate to allow the residents to enter in and dispose of the trash.
To give you a little history we met with the petitioner on site back in November of 2006 and told him what he needed to do; either move the trash compactor or file for a variance. He said he would file for a variance. We gave him to the end of that filing period to file and he didn't file so we sent him a letter and told him since he didn't file we invited him to the Plan Commission. He came to the Plan Commission in February and told me he was going to file by the end of the week and he never filed. So, I think on February 21st we sent a citation and a fine in the amount of $50.00 per day. He still didn't file. It sort of slipped by during the spring and we realized that he still hadn't filed and during this time the fines kept mounting because it was $50.00 per day. So, we sent him another letter and increased the fine and we got some action that time. He finally filed so that is why we are before you tonight.
Staff comments: The petitioner states that it is centrally located for the residents and at the current location it doesn't impact the Crown Plaza Apartments. Can the trash compactor be moved to the east here over to here and here is a parking area. It would still be somewhat centrally located plus he would be able to do a solid wall fence around the enclosure instead of a fence. If allowed at the current location, is the fence height an acceptable enclosure and then what is the plan for paying the fines? Here is the site plan and some photographs. This photograph makes it look closer to Crown Plaza. Here it is from Crown Plaza and then can it be moved to another location? Mr. Fitzgerald is here and I'm sure he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Carlucci asked, is there a sewer line easement through there, do you know?
Mr. James said I don't know.
Ms. Duffer said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said if there is an easement, I don't want him to be on an easement and I don't know if there is or not.
Mr. Larry Fitzgerald said I'm the owner of the Shrum's Mobile Home Park, Shrum's and Woodland Trace Park at 3603 S. Clarks Creek Road. I'm here asking for a variance to allow the continued use of a trash compactor located next to our south fence line. I contracted with Waste Management in spring of 2006 to install the trash compactor. At the time I was unaware that any permits were required nor did Waste Management inform me of any requirements. I have since talked to the main man that I work with on that and he was unaware of any requirements for permits. Previously, we used door to door pick-up in enclosed containers. Unfortunately, not all tenants use a container and instead used plastic bags. The park has been full of wild animals and stray cats, which have been forced to find food and shelter wherever possible due to the surrounding development and elimination of previous wild habitat. On every Tuesday when we previously had door to door trash pick-up, bags would be ripped open on Tuesday morning and cans would be turned over where the raccoons and cats had gotten into them and there was trash and garage strewn all over the streets.
I was cited with a violation in November of 2006. The reasons for the compacting makes the park cleaner and there is better sanitation. The people are not allowed to have trash cans on the exterior of their homes now so we don't allow anything being stored outside waiting for the weekly trash pick-up. This has eliminated some of the animal population and the problems that we have experienced with that. Problems that we have had with the compactor is the smell and the noise. I talked with Waste Management and they have a large tablet that can be put into the compactor that would eliminate the smell. I really haven't experienced the smell but I think there have been some complaints from some of the residents at the apartment but another possibility is cleaning out the container every time it is returned to us, which would be washed with bleach and water. The compactor is only used approximately three times a day and only during daylight hours. The noise level, if you can imagine a garage truck emptying a container in the back of the truck, that is about what the noise level is like. The nearest apartment door is approximately 60 feet from the compactor and then behind the compactor is the retention pond so the apartment is actually off to the angle there. Our solution to this problem would be to enclose the container with a privacy fence or the other possibility would be building a covered shelter over the top of the compactor. I checked with Waste Management and that is an option for us to do also.
As far as the fines that were levied against me, I honestly thought the first citation was $50.00 and the second one was $100.00 so the $100.00 I wasn't aware that this was on a daily situation; I thought this was a one time thing. The allegation that I jumped in once they raised the fine $100.00 really doesn't hold water because I thought it was just $150.00 total for the violation at this point. I would be happy to answer any questions that the board might have at this time.
Mr. Gibbs said it is my understanding that ultimately there really should be a 20 foot setback from the property line for this.
Mr. James said if it were new development, our ordinance would require a 20 foot bufferyard but since it is a legal nonconforming use it is just a 10 foot setback.
Mr. Gibbs said I guess where I was going with that is looking at the picture to my right that compactor was moved over to where that yellow arrow is indicating. I'm making the assumption that gives the 20 feet.
Mr. James said more than 20 feet.
Mr. Gibbs asked, Mr. Fitzgerald why wouldn't you not want to move that trash compactor?
Mr. Fitzgerald said I have invested right now $6,000.00 in where it is sitting. We had to pour concrete. There had to be a special grade of concrete and a certain depth. Where it is located right now it is more centrally located in the park. If it is moved back to the other location he is suggesting, it is going to require more traffic back to the back section of the park and right now it is about in the middle of the park where both ends can access it easily.
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible) requires an enclosure not be any taller than 10 feet.
Mr. James said that is correct.
Mr. Gibbs said it looks like that compactor is higher than that. How high is that?
Mr. Fitzgerald said the compactor is actually nine feet and the fence next to it is six.
Mr. Monnett asked, how many residents use that compactor?
Mr. Fitzgerald said we have 99 spaces in the park.
Mr. Monnett said and there is only the one compactor.
Mr. Fitzgerald said right.
Mr. Monnett said so if it was moved 30 feet; 50 feet; 75 feet, people are still going to use it because they drive over there right now, is that correct?
Mr. Fitzgerald said wherever it is they will have to drive to it yes.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible). It is better than dumpsters. I don't think the issue is the compactor; it is just where is the best location because I'm not sure if you moved it over to the other spot, (inaudible). Is that closer to those apartments as opposed to where you are?
Mr. James said I would think that it is farther away. Is the parking lot used for anything?
Mr. Fitzgerald said for storage.
Mr. James asked, can you comment on the sewer easement? Do you know if there is a sewer easement where the trash compactor is located?
Mr. Fitzgerald said there is actually a drainage underneath there from Wal-Mart. There is a tile that angles down through there.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible). I don't know if there is one there or not; I knew there was an issue at one time because there was a sewer line that was left over from the old Clarks Creek Conservancy that ran east and west but I'm not sure where exactly.
Mr. Matrana said so moving it if there was an easement, might be worse.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible).
Mr. James said that can be made a condition.
Mr. Daniel said (inaudible).
Ms. Duffer said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said I'm just have a hard time seeing in my mind the hardship. (Inaudible).
Mr. Fitzgerald said I did talk with Bob Carr who owns the apartments on Friday and he indicated he really didn't have any problems with where it is as long as we can control the noise level and the smell.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny BZA-07-022 as filed by Larry Fitzgerald requesting a Variance to the Development Standards to allow a trash compactor and a wood fence type enclosure to be located within the requested site at 3606 S. Clarks Creek Road.
Ms. Duffer said and that the fine be set at $150.00.
Mr. Carlucci said (inaudible)
Mr. Gibbs asked, Mr. Fitzgerald is that your acceptable site for you?
Mr. Fitzgerald asked, on the right?
Mr. Gibbs asked, or do you want to come back?
Mr. Fitzgerald said I would have to find out where the tiles come through there. If that is the only place they will allow it, then I have to move it. This system is more expense for me. It is about three times what it cost to have this pick-up but what it does for the cleanliness of the park I think it is worth the price.
Ms. Duffer asked, do we want to make it move there?
Mr. Gibbs said we can make it pending.
Mr. Monnett asked, Mr. James what do we want to refer that site as?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said also subject to the relocation of the trash compactor to the parking site verified September 17, 2007. Second by Ms. Duffer. Roll call vote called.
