02 - February 11
PLANNING & DEVELOPME NT DEPARTMENT
102 WEST MAIN STREET PRATTVILLE, ALABAMA 36067 334-361-3613 334-361 -3677
FACSIMILE
planning.prattvilleal.gov
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
A G E N D A
February 11, 2014
4:00pm
Call to Order:
Roll Call:
Chairman Leo Jamieson, Vice-Chairman James Miles, Mr. Jerry Cimis, Mr. Mac Macready, and Mrs. Jerry
Schannep. Alternate Member: Commander Michael Whaley.
Minutes:
Old Business:
None
New Business:
1. 140211-01 VARIANCE
To encroach into the required front, rear and side yards setback.
249 Easy Street
R-3 Zoning District (Single Family Residential)
Ethel M. Stoudemire, Petitioner
District 2
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment
February 11, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 2
City of Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment
Minutes
February 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) was called to order by
Chairman Leo Jamieson at 4:03 p.m. on Tuesday,February 11, 2014.
ROLL CALL:
Present:Chairman Leo Jamieson,Vice-Chairman James Miles, Mr. Gerald Cimis,Mr. Mac Macready,
and Commander Michael Whaley.Absent:Mrs. Jerry Schannep.
Quorum Present
Staff present:Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan,Secretary.
Chairman Jamieson stated the governing rules for the Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment according
to the Code of Alabama, 1975 and the procedure of the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
VARIANCE
To encroach into the required front,rear and side yards setback.
249 Easy Street
R-3 Zoning District (Single Family Residential)
Ethel M. Stoudemire, Petitioner
Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the variance request to encroach into the required front, rear and
side yards setback.
Ethel M. Stoudemire, petitioner, presented the variance request for the 8’ encroachment into the 25’
front yard, 5’ encroachment into the 30’ rear yard and the .2’ encroachment into the northwest corner
side yard.She stated that she did not know that there was any violation until she received notification
from the city’s building department. She stated that she did not obtain a survey of the property untilafter construction because she thought one was previously done. She stated that the lots’ description
that she received from the county’s office was different than the survey. She stated that the original
house plans were modified several times to ensure that the house would fit on the lot. She stated that
the front porch is the major encroachment but it looks no closer to the street that the surrounding
neighbor’s property.
Chairman Jamieson opened the public hearing.
Jimmy Morris, 226 Easy Street, stated that he help his sister with the construction. He stated that they
realized that there were violations after the house was built. He pleaded to the board for leniency to
allow his sister to maintain the property as constructed.
Chairman Jamieson called for a five minute recess. The meeting resumed with all prior members
present.
Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment
February 11, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 2
Queenie Morris Ezell, 270 Easy Street, spoke in favor of the request. She stated that the house and
other new construction had improved the look and safety of the neighborhood.
Betty Robinson, 125 Spanish Oak, spoke in opposition to the request. She stated that she purchased
property that she couldn’t use because of zoning regulations. She stated that everyone should comply
with regulations.
Carol Dassel, 520 Upper Kingston Road, adjacent property owner had no objection to the request.
The public hearing was closed.
After no further comments, questions, or discussion, the vote was called. Finding that the variance
would not adversely affect the surrounding property, the general neighborhood, or the community as a
whole;Mr.Cimis moved to approve as submitted.Commander Whaley seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS:
ADJOURN:
After no further comments, questions or discussion the meeting was adjourned at 5:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alisa Morgan,Secretary
Board of Zoning Adjustment
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Board of Zoning Adjustment
Planning Department Staff Report
VARIANCE 249 Easy Street
BZA Application – 140211-01
DATE February 10, 2014
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Ethel M. Stoudimere
Property Owners: same as petitioner
Agent: N/A
Location: 249 Easy Street
Development Status and History
Previous Variance
Requests/Approvals:
N/A
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
N/A
Property Configuration
Acreage: 0.37 acres (15,940 square feet)
Zoning Classification:
R-3, Single Family Residential
Relevant District
Standards:
Yard Setbacks:
Front: 25’
Rear: 30’
Side: 8’/6’
Requested Variance:
Effective variance as re-stated by staff (see application for
applicant statement): Encroachments into required 25”
front setback, 30’ rear setback, and 6’ side yard. Amount
of encroachment:
1. 6’ into front yard due to covered porch
2. 5’ encroachment into rear yard at SE corner
Page 2 of 3
3. 0.2 ‘ encroachment into side yard at NW corner
Statement of Hardship:
(taken from application)
“Writer is requesting this variance because it is important
for writer to move the house to meet the city zoning
criteria.”
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: Several visits in October 2013
Recommendation: Approval based on minimal or no impact to surrounding
properties.
Planning Staff Comments:
The variance is being requested for the recently completed residential structure at 249
Easy Street. A survey of the completed structure and property was requested by the
applicant/owner in September 2013 prior to requesting a Certificate of Occupancy. The
survey indicates that the completed house deviates from the site plan presented to the
city for building permit approval. The deviations created encroachments into the
required front, side and rear setbacks. The applicant is requesting a variance to correct
these builder errors.
State code and best practices require the BZA to measure variance requests against
several basic standards. Below is the staff opinion regarding the standards and this
request.
1. No special conditions and circumstances exist regarding this structure which are
not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3 zoning
district.
2. A literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms
of the zoning ordinance.
3. The special conditions and circumstances do result from actions of the applicant.
Page 3 of 3
4. The granting of a variance will confer a special privilege on the applicant that is
denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3
district;
5. The granting of a variance is in harmony with the intent and purposes of the
zoning ordinance;
6. A variance will not adversely affect the surrounding property, the general
neighborhood, or the community as a whole;
7. A variance will not allow the establishment of a use prohibited under the terms of
the zoning ordinance in an R-3 district.
It is clear that the applicant and the builder clearly deviated from the approved site
plan; making changes without consulting the city for information and approval.
Therefore, the hardship and the need for a variance are self-created. In addition, by
submitting a site plan for building permit approval that met code, the applicant
indicated that a variance is not necessary to allow construction of a residential
structure on the property.
It is clear that the applicant’s actions and the existence of a complete structure
magnify the impact of any decision by the Board. However, the Board should still try
to review the request as if it were presented prior to permit approval. This requires
the Board to examine the impact of the requested variances to the surrounding
neighborhood. Do the encroachments into the required setbacks adversely impact
the adjacent properties? Is the present setback significantly different from the
setback of existing structures near 249 Easy Street?
The impact of the requested variances to the surrounding neighborhood and
properties is minimal. The front setback encroachment is confined to the front
porch, and while not in compliance, matches the average setback of the existing,
older structures on the street. The rear setback encroachment is not noticeable
from the street. The side encroachment is known due to the survey to a ten of a
foot.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Site plan provided with December 2012 permit application
3. Survey of completed structure – September 2013