PLANNING & ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Board of Adjustment
The Taylorsville-Spencer County Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Thursday November 24, 2020 at 4:00 pm in the Fiscal Court meeting room and by way of video teleconference through Zoom due to COVID 19 at 28 East Main St., Taylorsville, Kentucky. (Due to Covid-19, anyone that entered the building was ask to wear a mask and each persons temperature was taken as they entered the building for the meeting.)
Chairman Greg Murphy called the meeting to order. Present were Annelle Hoene(on zoom), Doug Goodlett, Charlie Ethington, Greg Murphy, Attorney Dale, Administrator Julie Sweazy and Admin. Assistant Angie Helton. Dean Curtsinger was absent. Meeting was also connected by Zoom.
Approval of the Docket: Motion by Mr. Goodlett, second Mr. Ethington, discussion none, all in favor, motion carried.
Approval of the minutes: Motion by Mr. Goodlett, second Mr. Ethington, discussion none, all in favor, motion carried.
Committee Reports: Administrator Sweazy noted that she had sent an email to individuals that need training for the year. There are links to training videos that can be done to meet those requirements. If you did not receive an email, you are good.
Administrator Sweazy performed the oath of testimony to Mrs. Vanderpool.
Unfinished Business: None.
New Business: Administrator Sweazy read the application of Heather Shick Vanderpool requesting a Variance on a side yard setback line for a proposed attached garage to be constructed at 763 Watkins Glen aka. Lot 107, Watkins Glen. Mrs. Vanderpool is requesting a side yard setback variance to allow her to construct an attached garage on her property. The variance will allow the garage to be constructed to the eastern side of her home, which will line up with the existing driveway. She has the utility easement releases on the eastern side property line for all the utility companies to allow them to build the garage closer then the required 15 feet. She’s proposing to build 6.43 feet up to the nearest point of the property line. In your packets is the drawing prepared by Jamie Brown, so you can see where the proposed garage is to the right of the house and the nearest front corner point is 6.43 feet away. Also included is an overhead shot of her property for you to see how the properties lay.
Mr. Goodlett: What’s your purpose to get it over closer to the line?
Mrs.Vanderpool: So we can come in through the laundry room and have like a mud room. The other side of the house is only goes to the basement and the drive way is already on that right side so just want to attach on that right side.
Mr. Goodlett: So your going to use the same driveway? So, it’s behind the neighbors house and not effecting them in anyway?
Administrator Sweazy: We have not heard from any of the neighbors and they were notified.
Chairman Murphy: So we have clearance from the utility companies and the lateral line are not effected?
Mrs. Vanderpool: Yes, from all utility and the lateral lines are all the way in the back to the edge of property line.
Motion was made by Mr. Goodlett to approve the variance. It will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare; It will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity; It will not cause hazard or a nuisance to the public; It will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the Zoning Regulations.
Second by Mr. Ethington.
Chairman Murphy: We have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye, motion carried.
Administrator Sweazy: The next item on the docket is Gates vs. Brown litigation on a previous variance that was granted at 28 Stonecrest Court. July 23, 2020, Mr. & Mrs. Brown came before the board seeking approval of a variance to build a garage at 28 Stonecrest Court and the board granted that request. Then August 21, the board was named as a defended in a case filed by the Gates and other neighbors within Stoneridge Estates because they didn’t agree with the variance. I received a letter from the attorney, Mark E. Eddison, representing Mr. & Mrs. Brown which have advised that they do not intend to proceed with the construction project for which a variance was granted. The commission can rescind the prior granting of this variance request. The reason this has happened is when you grant a variance the variance stays with that property always. So even if the Brown’s sell it, the new owners can use the variance and build that building. So this would do away with it.
Attorney Dale: The Gates filed a lawsuit against the Brown’s and the board. So this is a settlement process. The Brown’s don’t want to pursue anything, they just want to get this litigation over with.
Mr. Hodge suggested that if the board would rescind the variance that they would not dispense in the lawsuit. It’s not that the board did anything wrong. This is just one of those cases where settling to get it over with. The Brown’s I believe maybe moving or relocating. The board did nothing wrong, the Brown’s are in agreement for it to be rescinded and it’s a way to get rid of this lawsuit.
Chairman Murphy: It’s my understanding that if we rescind it and take it off then no one can use it.
Attorney Dale: Right, It goes back to what it was.
Motion was made by Mrs. Hoene to rescind the variance that we approved and the property will go back to the way it was for future homeowners. It’s in settlement of this litigation.
Second by Mr. Goodlett.
Chairman Murphy: Any discussion, motion was made and second, all in favor, motion carried.
Administrator Sweazy: As for general questions or discussion, we do need to schedule another meeting. Are you all good with the second Thursday of January which is the 14th?
Chairman Murphy: Motion was made by Mr. Goodlett to adjourn. Second by Mrs. Hoene. Meeting adjourned.