Variance requests
May 6th, 2008 by 
Alica
Monday night, the city council went against a planning and zoning commission recommendation and granted a variance for a garage on property where there is not yet a house.
On several occasions in recent months, the council has gone against planning and zoning recommendations. We expect our elected officials, and our appointed ones as well, to do proper research before they make decisions that affect the future of our community. But when two city panels disagree with one another, how can citizens be confident the city is looking out for their best interests? Who is correct on these issues? The commission? Or the council?
We can’t just assume that the panel that gives the applicant what he wants is the right one. Certainly there are exceptions to every rule, and that’s why variances and conditional use permits exist. But city law has specific criteria for granting these exceptions. How can both panels follow the law and come up with opposite conclusions?
What are your thoughts?
Posted in Uncategorized, City business | 
May 7th, 2008 at 6:55 am
What is the point of having the planning and zoning board if the council is going to continue to over rule them?
This seems to be an issue of the last year or two, why? It seems the current council wants to have total control by always ignoring the recommendations of the P&Z.
Perhaps we should go to a board of equalization format. Of course the council has to vote for that so if the above statement is true then that will never happen.
I believe a variance is only to be issued if there is a definite hardship proven. Apparently the definition of hardship has changed over the years. I don’t think not having a garage on a lot that you don’t even live on is a hardship. When you purchase property with expectations of building on it in the future you know going in you’re going to have to maintain said property until you do build. But Brandon is getting a reputation that it’s easy to get a variance. We don’t make zoning laws just to break them do we?
I hope the council is prepared to handle the continued variance requests because if you let one you set a precedence and have to keep saying yes.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:12 am
This council is like the old, it appears. The planning and zoning commision follows the rules set previously and apparently the council changes at their on dicrestion, again it depends on who you know. If there in the city limits they should follow the rules every one else has to.
Looks like the two new guys are part of the GOB’s club already.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Did either of you read the article very carefully on the two recent decisions? I certainly interpreted them differently than either of you.
First, the “garage” issue. I certainly see “hardship” in this situation. What is a person to do? They bought TWO lots to build one home on and they are not being allowed to build….A house needs a septic system OR access to public sewer. The city said “NO” to the septic system and there isn’t any public sewer there…..I agree 100% with the City Council to override the Planning Commission. Not sure why the Planning Commission denied it in the first place.
**I certainly do understand HOW the city can say no to a septic system when they are not providing sewer, makes no sense to me.
Second, the other issue with the in home business. It came to the City Council with “No recommendation”s from the Planning Commision. WHAT? Is that any way to run things? As a citizen it sounds like a bunch of red tape to get through. Not fair to the citizens at all. Make a decsion one way or another. Sending it to the City Council with “no recommendation” is lame at best.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
To #3:
The man asking for a garage was citing, as his hardship, that it was inconvenient for him to have to haul his lawn mower to the site to mow, not that he couldn’t build a house there. He knew when he bought the land several years ago that he would not be able to live there until adequate sewage was possible. So, the question is: Is it a hardship to have to haul a mower? The Planning & Zoning Commission apparently felt that wasn’t a hardship.
Also, did you mean to say you do Not understand how the city can say no to a septic system? The answer is in the story. Septic systems add nitrates to the city’s water supply. To explain further: Once the nitrates reach a certain level, the water is contaminated beyond the city’s ability to clean it. The more septic tanks there are, the faster, and more, the water gets contaminated.
As for the home business, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend a “do pass.” But state law says that a majority of the commission must vote for a motion in order for it to pass. There are six on the commission, so four votes are needed to pass any motion. Two commissioners were absent on the night of the vote on this issue. So even though the majority of those present, by 3-1, voted in favor of the motion, it could not pass. However, it wasn’t defeated either, so technically the matter moved to the council with no recommendation.
If anyone has any other questions, please ask and I’ll do my best to find out the answers.
Alica
May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Thank you for the common sense Alica.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I hadn’t met the City Council or the Mayor prior to being put on the agenda for my variance request. I decided to call each Council Member and the Mayor prior to presenting my request. Each and every one of them took time out to meet with me to discuss my request, many insisted on visiting the property firsthand with me. We discussed the larger issues of water and sewer infrastructure in this area (this Subdivision was created in 1954, contains the majority of homes within the City limits without City water/sewer, and is directly over the Cities water supply). The issues are much more complex than just the request to build a garage and this is not easily explained. This is a starting point to address the larger issues. Whether we agreed or not, I was impressed with the professionalism of the Council and Mayor and I am confident that they have the citizen’s best interests in mind.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
To Alica - The only information I used to base my opinions was what I read in the newspaper. Maybe better clarification was necessary in the article. Much of the info you shared in your post above was NOT in the newspaper article.
I also understand the nitrate situation with septic systems. The article “inferred” that this gentleman was in limbo about when he could build a home due to the septic/sewer system installation. No where in the article did it state he knew about this situation before purchasing these lots.
I do not know the specifics in this situation but sometimes hauling a lawn mower, etc. CAN be a hardship. I have owned property that needs weekly maintenance and hauling a lawn mower is difficult for me. Most definately a hardship.
Also, in reference to the other home business situation. Why didn’t the Planning & Zoning Commission just “postpone” the vote to the next meeting when they had more members. Again, posters # 1&2 made the City Council look like evil doers as they “overrode” the P & Z Commission, which is really not the case.
I am certainly happy that #6 is content with the situation and is pleased with the professionalism of the city council. My post was more to defend the city council actions and take aim at the bashers in posts # 1&2.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Anon— bash away. As stated the hardship is self inflicted as all the issues were there when the lot was purchased.
The septic tank issue, not an expert on septic tanks but I believe they can be built with a proper drain field today to stop the nitrates from seeping into the water supply. It’s expensive but can be done.
Point is, rules are made by a governing body to apply to all, if a ligitimate hardship is present , hence the request for a variance.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
To #8: Self inflicted is a good way to describe what the applicant and the city council deemed a hardship. On a side note, it reminds me of the old joke about the man who murdered his parents and then begged the court for leniency because he was an orphan.
Back to the issue, though. The applicant asked for the variance because he wanted a place to put his mower. Would a shed have worked as well? Could he have put one on the property without a variance? If so, no problem.
It occurs to me that the present situation, that of finding a way to store his equipment, was more to the point in this case than his plans to eventually replat the lots and build a house there and be able to flush. All that stuff could be years … and years … down the road. A lot could happen to change the applicant’s plans by then, or the city laws. There are many variables.
Should the council have looked at the immediate need and not have tried to factor in future plans? Possibly.
What are your thoughts?
May 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Alica, is it not obvious that the owner has no intent of the sewer and water being installed by the city as the expense is then inncurred by the property owners? That is there hardship.
Your comment about the shed, 100% right, that should of been all that was needed.
In stead we now have a city council approved non-conforming use in the city. The legal aspects of others asking for these type of variances opens the doors to just about anything.
Our appointed Planning and Zoning board did what was expected of them based on city ordinances. Our elected city officials, those that are to up hold those ordinances, OR CHANGE THEM, decided as they have in the past, felt no need to worry about such rules. That is until the next time one comes up, and we get to see who the applicant is.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I think everyone is missing the bigger issue. We have houses with septic systems near the city wells. As stated, these septic systems are over 30 years old. I am not an expert on septic systems, but my quick research found that the average life of a septic system is about 30 years. So we have the potential for a big problem that could affect the whole city if our water source gets contaminated. I don’t understand how we can have property within the city limits that don’t have access to basic utilities, nor is there a plan in place to address it. All of us will feel ‘the hardship’ of not having sewer available in this area if the city doesn’t act soon.