02/01/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

it has two front yards and front yard setbacks required. Lastly, Andrew states that the City recommends denial of all eight variances based on the staff findings of facts. Ms. Bruce asked what it meant that the lot was not to be platted. Mr. Mack explained that City has not approved a subdivision plat to be recorded at the Lamar County Clerk's office. Ms. Bruce then asked why the person was cited. Mr. Mack clarified that it was for not obtaining a permit before beginning to build the structure. Ms. Alsobrook asked if a permit was issued for the concrete. Mr. Mack explained that that a permit was pulled for the concrete driveway, but not for the carport itself. Mr. Mack clarified that the owner came in beforehand and attempted to obtain a permit, but was told he could not because these requirements could not be met. When the owner went ahead with building the carport anyway without permit approval, he was cited to stop work. Ms. Bruce states that she does not agree with the property owner being given a citation since there are several people who come in for variances after -the fact. Paige Unger, City staff member, clarified that the "citation" that was previously mentioned began as a stop work order which does not have any fees associated with it. The property owner did in fact come in and request a permit and after being told he could not meet the requirements to acquire one he began building the structure anyway, so the stop work order was issued. When the owner continued to build after the stop work order was issued the case was then passed over to the Code Enforcement department to initiate the process of correcting the matter. The owner was given the option to apply for all eight of these variances and potentially obtain a permit with full compliance, but if not all of variances passed Code Enforcement would then proceed with their due process. Ms. Alsobrook asked if the variances were denied if the property owner would have to remove the structure. Mr. Mack Andrew replied that depending on the denial or approval of the variances with conditions, the owner could have options. Mr. Mack continued that if the board were to approve any of the variances they would have to state their own findings of fact since they would not follow the City's findings of fact. Mr. Mack was not certain that the carport would have to be removed. The owner is currently under the order to stop work until either the variances are passed or he is taken to court. Mr. Walker asked if when obtaining the permit for the concrete driveway the owner was not made aware that he could not put anything over it. Ms. Unger informed the Board that typically a permit is not required for pouring concrete driveways unless there is an alteration to the approach. Mr. Mack told the Board that the dilapidated driveway was replaced to provide access to the existing garage, but regardless of whether or not the driveway was permitted, the carport was not. Laura Caffey, of 1116 Lamar Avenue, informed the Board that she was contacted by the owner for her architectural services. Ms. Caffey explained that when he had come to her he was under the impression from the Building Official at the time that the only issue with building the