Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Board of Adjustment ALDC 3rd Floor Conference Room May 20, 2016 3:00 p.m. Present: Joyce Gutcheck, Glenn Gutcheck, Chair Bill Johnson, Vice-Chair Donna Kostelecky Absent: Lorraine Biggs-Gallik Others Attending: Charly Loper, Planner I, Jodi Lechman, Secretary Planning Department Guests: Pat Reardon, Mike Grayson, Jim Sullivan, Dr. Jim Sullivan, Donna Sullivan Chair Bill Johnson called the meeting to order and explained the role of the Board of Adjustments. Approval of the April 29, 2016 Minutes: Joyce Gutcheck made a motion to accept the minutes. Vice-Chair Donna Kostelecky seconded. Discussion: None Motion carried unanimously. V16-02: A request by Applicant, Pat Reardon (Shamrock Realty), agent for Bob Morris; for a variance to allow relief from the 20 foot setback standard for a dock within the Georgetown Lakeshore Protection Standards. Applicant is requesting 1-foot setback from the dock to the property line where 20-feet is currently required by code. The subject property is legally described as Lot 4F-3 of Morris Subdivision in Section 07, of Township 05N, Range 13W. Staff Report presented by Charly Loper: The variance is necessitated due to exceptional and/or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are unique to the subject property, and are not generally characteristic of similarly situated properties. Bill Johnson confirms that the parcel in question was designed in 2012 and the new code was implemented in 2015. Failure to approve the variance will result in undue hardship because no reasonable conforming use of the lot is possible without a variance. Bill confirms that if this variance is denied, it still leaves a single-family home with physical access to the lake just no dock. Approval of the variance(s) will preserve a property right or use that is generally enjoyed by owners of similarly situated properties, and conversely, approval of a variance will not bestow a special privilege on the applicant that is not generally enjoyed by the owners of similarly situated properties. 1 P age
Staff Report presented by Charly Loper (continued): Vice-Chair Donna Kostelecky inquires if this would be the only request for this coming to the BOA, will we be setting a precedence with this variance? Charly Loper confirms there are other parcels that do have less than 48 of lake shore frontage that could possibly come to the BOA for variance request. The alleged hardship has not been created by the applicant. The hardship was created by the code change that took place after the lot was created with the current configuration in 2012. Prior to 2015, there was no minimum side setback standard for a dock in Georgetown Lake. Now, with this code, staff doesn t anticipate any future lots to be developed with less than 48 feet of lake frontage. Specific relief from the code shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the applicant s stated objectives. Bill confirms with Charly Loper that 8 is a standard typical dock size. At this point, Donna asks for introductions of the guests that arrived after the meeting started. Guests are Mike Grayson, Jim Sullivan, Donna Sullivan and Dr. Jim Sullivan. Adverse impacts associated with granting relief from the code are avoided or effectively mitigated. The purpose of the Georgetown Lakeshore Protection Standards, is directly from ADLC Code 24 Appendix B. o Protect the sensitive lakeshore areas from overdevelopment. Glenn Gutcheck inquired about the dock to the South when it s in the water, how far away would it be from the proposed dock? Charly defers this question to the property owner (Sullivan s). Jim Sullivan responds, two feet. o Protect water quality in Georgetown Lake through the preservation of natural shoreline areas and beneficial riparian vegetation. Refer to site plan Attachment F. Donna and Bill inquire about removing the proposed dock. Charly confirms an 8 dock would be placed onto a 10 strip. The dock cannot go perpendicular to the shoreline. Charly also confirms that this is an issue in that it will block some of the property to the North. o Maintain the visual quality of Georgetown Lake for all to enjoy no additional discussion. o Protect property values on the lake by ensuring quality, responsible development. It was discussed among the board members that the lot to the North could be impacted with their dock (docks crossing over each other). Charly confirms that yes this could be an issue. o Protect property rights, lake use, and lake access through the establishment of reasonable and prudent lakefront development standards no additional discussion. Staff finds the potential adverse effects to be avoided or effectively mitigated as the purpose of the Georgetown Lakeshore Protection Standards are met through the proposed dock development. 2 P age
Findings and Recommendations: Staff finds that the criteria for granting relief from the code set forth in ADLC Code 24 Appendix B are substantially met and recommends that the variance be approved. Recommended Conditions: 1. The contract purchasers are required to remediate and maintain from the water to twenty (20) horizontal feet of the mean annual high water elevation with native grasses and other plant materials before installation of the dock. The mean annual high water elevation for Georgetown Lake has been established according to MCA 75-7-202(4), at 6,429.6 msl. 2. No vehicle shall drive on the 10 foot arm of the property unless for emergencies. Discussion with Board: None Public Comment: Pat Reardon, Real Estate Broker representing owner of property Bob Morris. Currently all docks on public property have been done without permits, this would be the first dock that would need approval. I have been told that you re not permitting the dock, but rather the variance. This is a condition of the sale, the buyer asked Mr. Morris to apply for this variance, lake access is very important to the buyer. Board Comment: Bill reminds the board and guests that we are currently operating under new rules and regulations that changed over one year ago. Public Comment: Mike Grayson, Attorney for Dr. Jim Sullivan and Donna Sullivan discussed how this particular lot was developed, calling it a flag pole lot which is not a traditional lot. The said lot was created in 2012, and the new ordinance went into effect in 2015, so Mr. Morris had two years to build a dock before the new ordinance went into effect; Mr. Morris has created this hardship on his own. Also, all variance criteria should be met, not just some of it. Reference, letter B in the attached staff report, this statement is just not true; it doesn t meet all of the criteria, so it should be denied. Dr. Jim Sullivan states he has owned his property since 1972, he and his family would visit each summer for 2-4 weeks at a time. He and his wife now live at their property during the summer months and comments that this proposed dock would be an intrusion to them. Bill asks, how far away would the proposed dock be away from yours? Mike Grayson responds, 3 feet. 3 P age
Public Comment (continued): Jim Sullivan (son) questions the accuracy of the staff report 1) Zoning, protect property values 2) Property rights. Glenn Gutcheck asks how long has your anchor piece been in place? Jim states 3-4 years. Glenn confirms that this anchor is a permanent piece for this dock. Jim confirms, yes. Donna asks if neighboring residents were notified of this variance request and if there has been any comment from them. Charly responds, yes notification was sent out, one neighbor had some general questions; however, did not express any concerns. And Charly did hear from the Sullivan family. Jim states, Mr. Morris has had plenty of opportunity to place his dock prior to the ordinance change. Mike states that Mr. Reardon s ad on the internet is a bit premature, it says that a dock can be placed. Jim further discusses Criteria B in the staff report stating he disagrees. There are three ways in which there could be a dock placed at the said property 1) Buy lake front property (this is not lake front, it s considered flag pole property) 2) Survey, move boundary, following the zoning regulations 3) Common owners share dock, they could share with Mr. Brewer. Next Jim talks about removing the proposed dock from the water, how can this be done without trespassing on my father s property? Also, stating that he disagrees with points 4 and 5 in the staff report. This proposed dock will materially affect the value of my father s property. Example, if they pulled a boat up to the proposed dock, the boat would be directly in front of our fire pit. Donna reminds all that nobody owns the water. Jim references Title 75 Chapter 7, 213 variance procedure prepare an environmental impact statement, has this been done? By approving this variance it would set a bad precedence. Donna reminds all that they are here today to protect the neighbors, to be sure that the said variance request does not infringe on neighboring properties. Donna asks Mr. Reardon if any of this conversation had been brought to his attention prior to this meeting. Mr. Reardon, states no. Donna asked Mr. Reardon, what would Mr. Morris say about the information that has been provided? Mr. Reardon states, I don t know what he would say, I can t speak for him. Mr. Reardon states that all docks that have been placed at Georgetown Lake have not had an Administrative Development Permit Application. 4 P age
Charly confirms that ADP applications are not required for docks at Georgetown Lake. She points out that Criteria B has come up quite frequently and this is common, this one just doesn t apply in this instance. Just making sure the board is aware while making their decision. Vice-Chair Donna Kostelecky made a motion to approve Variance 16-02 to allow a 1-foot dock setback where 20-feet is currently required by code with the conditions as addressed. Joyce Gutcheck seconded the motion. Board Member Discussion: Donna expressed concern for both parties, both have valid points. She states she feels Mr. Morris should have place the dock during the timeframe, prior to the new ordinance. Glenn voices concern for the adverse impact this dock would have on the Sullivan property. Motion failed. With all board members present, Joyce Gutcheck, Glenn Gutcheck, Chair Bill Johnson and Vice-Chair Donna Kostelecky opposed to granting the variance. Chair Bill Johnson confirms the variance request has been denied. Old Business: None Miscellaneous Matters / Public Comments: Matters from the board: None Matters from the staff: None Public comment: None Miscellaneous: None Adjournment A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Next meeting: Unknown Respectfully Submitted, Jodi L. Lechman Jodi L. Lechman, Secretary, Planning Department 5 P age