CRISP COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 21, 2012
The Crisp County Zoning Board of Appeals met at a regular meeting on the 21st day of January at 9:00 am. in the Crisp County Government Center.
The following members were present: Emmett Walker, J.C. Clark, Jerry Carney, Wendy Peavy and Lucky Taylor.
Also present, Connie Sangster, Secretary & Planning Director & Jimmy Mumphery, County Building Inspector.
Also present were the following visitors: Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Miller, Raul Chapa, Gene Slade and Rev. Fred Jones.
1st Order of Business
Chairman Emmett Walker stated that this was the first meeting of this board for the year 2012 and a chairman and vice chairman would have to be elected. Mr. Walker stepped down as Chairman and turned the meeting over to Ms. Sangster to call for the required motions.
1st Order of Business
Ms. Sangster asked for floor to be open for the nomination of Chairman.
Motion was made by J.C. Clark, seconded by Jerry Carney to elect Emmett Walker as Chairman. Vote carried unanimously 4-0.
Ms. Sangster turned the meeting back over to Chairman Emmett Walker. Mr. Walker opened the floor for the nomination of Vice-Chairman.
Motion was made by Jerry Carney, seconded by Lucky Taylor to elect J.C. Clark as Vice Chairman. Vote carried unanimously 4-0.
VOTE: Motion was made by J.C. Clark with a second by Jerry Carney to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2011 Minutes. Carried unanimously.
Request from Jerry and Laverne Miller to locate an accessory structure on a parcel of property prior to or in lieu of a principle use on the property. Property is located east of 234 Lakeshore Way and west of 212 Lakeshore Way. Property is zoned RS2 (Single Family Residential).
Chairman Emmett Walker called the hearing to order. Mr. Walker read aloud the criteria and procedures that the board considers when making decisions. At this time, Mr. Walker read aloud the variance request. Jerry and Laverne Miller and their contractor Raul Chapa were present for the hearing. Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Chapa would explain their request. Mr. Chapa told the board that the Miller's were wanting him to build a 20x30 storage building with an 8x30 front porch and an 8x30 on the back side with an 8/12 pitch roof with cedar siding, Windows are going to be like shutters. There will be 2 entrances. The intent of the building is for storage of miscellaneous items. Mr. Walker asked would it be any type of a living quarters. Mr. Chapa replied no. Mr. Walker asked how far the building will be located from the road on the east-west side? Mr. Chapa replied approximately 175-250 yards away from the main road. Mr. Walker stated that the total area is 21 acres and from looking at this diagram would it be located in the middle of it. Mr. Chapa replied that it is more to the east of the property. Mr. Walker asked again if this is strictly to be used as stated. Mr. Chapa replied yes for storage. Mr. Chapa stated that they had the opportunity to build a house but they do not want a house they only want a storage building. Mr. Walker asked if it was going to be portable. Mr. Chapa replied yes – it will not be a permanent concrete structure. He stated that he doubted they would ever move it but if they needed to they could. Mr. Clark asked about power to the building. Mr. Chapa stated that they were going to put power at the location, they will have golf carts and such that need plugging in. Mr. Taylor asked if it was going to be plumbed. Mr. Chapa replied no. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Mumphery if he saw anything with the structure that concerns him. Mr. Mumphery replied the only thing will be what amp electrical service they will want to put in, and advised the Board to maybe put a limit on the size of service for the use like maybe a 60 amp. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Chapa if he saw a need for anymore than a 60 amp service there. Mr. Chapa replied no. Mr. Miller stated that he would prefer a 100 amp. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Mumphery if he thought that a 60 amp would be more appropriate. Mr. Mumphery stated that for storage a 60 amp would be adequate. Mr. Clark stated they would take that under consideration in their discussion. Mr. Walker asked if there were any additional questions from the board. There were none. Mr. Walker stated that this concluded the public hearing portion of the meeting and now they would go into discussion and vote. Mr. Clark asked one more question, he asked if there were anymore property/people beside this property. Mr. Mumphery stated they owned all of this. Mr. Miller stated there were 250 acres all total. Public portion of hearing now concluded for discussion
After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion.
VOTE: A motion was made by Jerry Carney seconded by J.C. Clark to approve the variance request to allow a 20x30 storage building to be placed on the property in lieu of a principle building with the stipulation that the electrical service is limited to a 60 amp. Carried unanimously 3-0.
Request from Ebenezer Baptist Church to reduce the required 50' front yard setback to 20' and a variance to reduce the required 35' rear yard setback to 6' for the purpose of constructing a Fellowship Hall and Educational Building.
Chairman Walker called the hearing to order. Gene Slade and Rev. Fred Jones were present on spoke on behalf of the request. Rev. Jones stated they were proposing to build 2 additions to their facilities that will accommodate present and future growth. He stated the first phase edition will be the educational building that will encroach on the setback on the front and this will accommodate their need for Sunday School rooms, he stated they have about 8 Sunday School rooms planned for this area which includes the nursery, children, youth and adult classrooms and presently they are limited to growth based on their present Sunday School classrooms which they are at capacity. He stated that as you can see on the layout the proposed buildings do run over into the setback area so they are requesting the variances. Mr. Walker asked if the building that is the furtherest back (the Fellowship Hall) when it moves towards the present building there – how close are they going to be. Rev. Jones stated he thought about 20' . He stated it was 20' proposed between the two buildings. Mr. Walker asked if the existing porch would remain on the present building there. Rev. Jones replied that the porch would be removed and plans are to work a ramp to accommodate the land and would drop from the floor space to the floor level in order to allow the needed slopes. Ms. Peavy asked Rev. Jones how far is the proposed fellowship hall located from the cemetery (existing graves)? Rev. Jones replied real close, within 3' or so. He stated he had not gone out there and measured it and asked Mr. Slade if he had any idea how close the building will be? Mr. Slade replied that they are not as close as the two existing buildings there. The 2 existing buildings, (church and fellowship hall) as you can tell are closer and those there are probably 5 or 6', he stated you could walk through there but as far as getting any kind of equipment through there, such as burial equipment, you couldn't. Ms. Peavy asked if there were any more sites there for future burial. Mr. Slade replied yes and that he was on the cemetery committee and they have planted burial to the rear and across the road. He showed the Board per the presented diagram where they plan to install a new septic tank and drainage and they have no intentions of going into that area for new burial sites since they have plenty across the road and behind the fellowship hall. Ms. Peavy stated that she did not realize that there were more burial area on the back side. She stated that she was wondering how far from the proposed back building is from the cemetery. Mr. Walker replied that on the upper end there is a light pole and that on this side of the pole there is probably as many as 10 concrete posts that goes down between this area we are talking about now and the only thing that really bothers him is probably from that grave site which is the Jones' it concerns him that kids may possibly be getting on the graves because of the closeness. Mr. Walker asked Ms. Sangster what is the closest a structure is suppose to be to a grave. Ms. Sangster replied that we really don't regulate cemeteries. Rev. Jones stated that they really hadn't had a problem with it from their present structures and they do have a playground for the children to play and the yard in the front and then they have acquired this extra land to the north that will be over the drain fields in that area and there will be area for the children to play in. Mr. Walker asked who owned the top portion of the property? Mr. Slade replied Janie Kate Mathews' up around the ponds and field. Ms. Sangster asked Mr. Slade if they had to have any kind of permits through the state for the cemetery since the county did not get involved. Mr. Slade stated that the cemetery committee is made of Webster McKinney, William Culpepper and himself and when someone gets ready for a grave or something the funeral homes know to contact one of them. Mr. Clark asked if the congregation had agreed to all of this? Rev. Jones stated they had not presented it to them yet and they were trying to get everything in place before they present it. Mr. Clark stated the reason he was saying that was because of the graves and if somebody might have a issue with that. Rev. Jones stated that this area has not been designated for cemetery – where the proposed buildings are going, it is open area. Plans for cemetery expansion is behind the present cemetery and across the road. Mr. Taylor asked where was the closest fire hydrant or are there any? Rev. Jones stated there weren't any out there. Mr. Clark asked if a firetruck could get around there if it needed to. Mr. Mumphery replied that a firetruck could not get around there now with the grave sites there, he stated that it could get to any building but would have to fight the building from the front. Mr. Clark replied that even as of now, if a fire started it would have to be fought from the front. Mr. Mumphery stated that the Chief would not put a firetruck in an area that would be in danger anyway. Ms. Sangster asked Mr. Slade and Rev. Jones what the outcome was when they discussed turning the buildings? Rev. Jones stated they were still in the process of getting an Architect and one of the 2 Architects they spoke with recommended keeping them as there are laid out as presented, because of the increased expense and reworking the layout to rotate them and as he looked at them they were not going to gain very much by rotating them. Mr. Mumphery stated that by scaling it , it just seemed to give you more area in the front. Ms. Peavy asked if there had been a rendering done of the buildings yet other than just a scale? Rev. Jones stated they have the layout here that the Architect drew out for them and the Civil Engineer has overlaid it with the surveying that has been done. Rev. Jones stated that their Architect had passed away and they are in the process of searching for another one. He stated they were going to move forward in getting him to provide the architectural drawings and then he passed away and they were not able to do so. He did do a sketch of what the building would look like from the road, but he did not have a copy of that with him but it would be 5-6' to the closest point. Mr. Walker stated that as it goes north it gets wider from 6' to 10'12 ' almost. Mr. Walker stated that when they vote they will vote for each request, and that the front building which will be the Educational Building, the one where they want the 20' variance. Ms. Peavy asked if there had been any other consideration of making this instead of 2 buildings into 1 building like doing a 2 story structure. Rev. Jones stated they had looked at that earlier on and the cost would be more to do a 2 structure building or to do a 2 floor building – 2 separate building – plus with this proposed layout they can do the first building which is their immediate need for growth and then in time do the second phase which would be more affordable to do it this way. Mr. Carney stated that it was strange that it was more expensive and Rev. Jones stated that he what he thought but the architects assured them that it would be more expensive to do a 2 story building. Ms. Peavy stated that would solve a lot of issues if it was a 2 story building. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Mumphery if he had any comments as far as what they were looking at here. Mr. Mumphery stated that he would prefer to look more into detail of turning the building and get some exact figures in maybe helping them in to create what they were looking for in the front and on the north side of the building -as far as the parking that may be an issue and the buildings themselves, but other than that, no sir. Mr. Walker stated that on the front building now the one next to the road, that is the one that there is a 50' setback and they want to move it to 20'. Mr. Carney stated that he was really torn on all this and it is a tough one and that his impression from this layout that they are really shoehorning this in and does 20' versus 50' does that hurt anybody, probably not and 6'8” versus 20' does it hurt anybody, probably not and if that is what needs to be done, it needs to be done. He stated that parking was going to be an issue and to him as far as the variance is concerned, he probably does not have a problem with the variances but he does have a problem with trying to shoehorn something in with inadequate parking too close to the road and he could come up with more than a dozen things wrong with this layout in his own opinion but sticking to the variances if that is what people want to do, he doesn't see anyone at the cemetery getting upset and as far as the road – a road is a road and if its 20' off the road and you want the road noise then the person who has the building suffers the consequences of it. H stated that in all honestly from his standpoint if he was sitting on the building committee or whatever he would not be happy with this layout. Mr. Taylor stated that it was actually 20' from the r-o-w and not the road. Mr. Carney replied that is correct. Mr. Clark stated that he didn’t have any problems with the variances himself but the only thing he has a problem with is the building itself, no reflection on what they are trying to do, it is just that when it comes down to fire hazards you have to have an escape route. You got a lot of people in those 2 buildings and a firetruck can't get to them. Mr. Mumphery replied that as far as the buildings themselves, they would have to be designed for fire exit travel, which will be handled by the building codes. Mr. Walker stated that this board had to decide if the variance is enough to accommodate the other use of the ground. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Sangster if a variance is required for the parking lots. Ms. Sangster replied that they had already discussed the r-o-w with Mr. Slade and Rev. Jones and that is going to go away as drawn and they won't be able to do anything in the r-o-w. Rev. Jones stated that Ms. Sangster told them that the number of parking spaces is based on the size of the sanctuary attendance, so therefore they calculated their pew space and they need approximately 27 paved parking spaces. Ms. Sangster told the board that as long as the principal building (the Church) was not being increased they did not have to provide additional parking. The Church attendance may grow, but as long as the footprint of the Church does not change the parking is not an issue. Mr. Walker asked about the road that runs through there now (Crisp Academy Drive) is it a designated county road. Rev. Jones stated that the State sold them the property across the road where the cemetery is. At this time Mr. Walker asked if there were any other questions? There were none. At this time he concluded the public hearing portion and went into discussion.
After discussion, Chairman Walker asked for a motion on the first request to reduce the required 50' front yard setback to 20'.
A motion was made by Lucky Taylor, seconded by Jerry Carney to approve the request to reduce the required 50' front yard setback to 20. Carried unanimously.
After discussion, Chairman Walker asked for a motion on the second request to reduce the required 35' rear yard setback to 6'.
A motion was made by Jerry Carney, seconded by Lucky Taylor to approve the request to reduce the required 35' rear yard setback to 6'. Carried unanimously.