The Clarkson Valley Board of Adjustment, pursuant to notices posted, met at City Hall in the Clarkson Executive Center to consider three agenda items.
Board of Adjustment Members present were:
Darryl Brody, Chairperson
Jim Barry
Tom Berkeley
Paul Mercurio
Phyllis Newmark, Alternate
The City Attorney, Mr. Patrick Butler attended and the City Clerk, Michele McMahon recorded the Minutes. Board Member Jack Hauser, Karen Koshak and Terry Rosenstrauch were unable to attend.
The City Attorney and Chairman explained to the petitioners they are present tonight to ask this Board to permit a variance from the Clarkson Valley Code 405.060.E.3. establishing that no building (or structure) shall intrude upon the area required for front, side and rear yards by proving practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out of the provisions of the code due to topographic or other conditions.
A Board for these adjustment requests consists of five members and a concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to effect a variation in the Zoning Ordinance. The Chairperson then asked the petitioners if they had objections to any of the Members of the Board of Adjustment, to which they responded they did not. He then asked the Board Members if they had an opportunity to view the properties to which all stated they had. After the meeting was called to order and protocol established, the petitioners and an attorney were sworn in. Darryl Brody read the Notice of Public Hearing for all three agenda items.
- To consider the request of:
Larry and Mary Ellen Block
118 Forest Club Drive
Clarkson Valley, MO 63005
to construct a covered front porch that would encroach 6.8’ beyond the 75’ front building line.
- To consider the request of:
Bernie and Carla Squitieri
2156 Kehrs Mill Road
Clarkson Valley, MO 63005
to construct a fence to encroach 20’ into the west side yard, 15’ into the east side yard and 45’ into the rear yard.
- To consider the request of:
Scott and Sherri Black
16850 Kehrsdale Drive
Clarkson Valley, MO 63005
to move an existing wrought iron fence 12’ to the left beyond the side building line.
Mrs. Mary Ellen Block apologized her husband was unable to attend tonight’s meeting as he was traveling out of town on business. She explained her house was originally platted with a 60’ front yard setback but she now understands that has changed back to the 75’ front yard setback. She said they are proposing to demolish the existing front porch which is falling apart and build a new porch with a covering. It will require a variance.
Board Member, Paul Mercurio asked the Board how they voted on this type of request in the past? Chairperson Brody responded that each request is taken on an individual basis.
The Chairman called for proponents or opponents, to which there were none. There was no one from the City to speak on the proposal.
The City Attorney, Patrick Butler explained to the Board Members the intent of the zoning code and read the merits and conclusion portion contained therein.
Darryl Brody read the Agenda item again and then asked the Members for their factual determination of the proposal to construct a covered front porch that would encroach 6.8’ beyond the 75’ front building line to which: question (1) three are, two are not, (2) two will, three will not, (3) five will, (4) five will not, (5) one will, four will not, (6) five will.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a covered front porch that would encroach 6.8’ beyond the 75’ front building line with the following results: Yeas: Brody, Barry, Berkeley, Mercurio and Newmark.
The Chairperson declared the Block’s request for variance as having been approved. Darryl Brody then advised Mrs. Block the variance granted by the Board is based upon what took place tonight. Any change making the variance greater than what was presented will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting.
Darryl Brody read the second agenda item and gave the floor to the petitioner, Mr. Bernie Squitieri. Mr. Squitieri introduced himself and his wife, Carla, and said they purchased the house the month before. He gave details of his request to construct a fence to encroach 20’ into the west side yard, 15’ into the east side yard and 45’ into the rear yard, mentioned obtaining neighbors approval which included discussion from the Dunhill Trustees regarding the common ground his property abuts on the east side of his property. They pulled the request for the fence on that side in from 5’ to 10’ to give better access to the trees along the property line which he has agreed to maintain. He then introduced his attorney, John Gazzoli.
Mr. Gazzoli showed plans for a pool, hot tub and pool house which were developed by the previous owner but never constructed. The Board understood from Mr. Squitieri that his intent with this request for the fence did not include the hot tub and pool house. Mr. Squitieri confirmed that as being true. His interest is in building the fence now and constructing the pool later. Mr. Gazzoli went on to say the hardship for this variance request is based on the shape of the lot.
Mr. Squitieri said when they were given the site plan while in the process of purchasing the house, they were not aware the fence was to be considered a structure that had to be within the building lines. He has an odd, pie-shaped lot.
Several questions were asked of the Squitieri’s; one of which regarded the orientation of the pool. They were asked why they couldn’t turn the pool 90 degrees, or so, which would allow the fence to go around the project and not extend beyond the building lines. Mr. Squitieri said it would not look good.
The Chairman called for proponents or opponents, to which there were none. There was no one from the City to speak on the proposal.
The City Attorney, Patrick Butler explained to the Board Members the intent of the zoning code and read the merits and conclusion portion contained therein.
Darryl Brody read the Agenda item again and then asked the Members for their factual determination of the proposal to construct a fence to encroach 20’ into the west side yard, 15’ into the east side yard and 45’ into the rear yard to which: question (1) two are, three are not, (2) four will, one will not, (3) three will, two will not (4) five will not, (5) one will, four will not, (6) five will.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a fence to encroach 20’ into the west side yard, 15’ into the east side yard and 45’ into the rear yard with the following results: Yeas: Berkeley, Brody and Newmark. Nays: Barry and Mercurio.
The Chairperson declared the Squitieri’s request for variance as not approved. The City Attorney welcomed the petitioner to come back to this Board with an alternate plan.
Chairman Brody re-read the last agenda item: to move an existing wrought iron fence 12’ to the left beyond the side building line.
Mrs. Sherri Black introduced herself and her husband, Scott, to the Board Members. They both explained the nature of their existing wobbly deck and while contracting to replace that, decided it was time to better access the pool below with a set of stairs. However, they explained that by doing so, it would require moving the existing wrought iron fence 12’ into the side yard setback area. Two Board Members felt that while looking at the proposal, they thought the project would require the fence to be moved closer to 14’ than the 12’ being requested. Controversy then went to the steps, which the Chairman and Board Member Mercurio felt also required a variance. Further discussion centered on these steps which the Black’s stated were merely stepping stones set into the ground – no footings or grading required. It was deemed there was insufficient information to continue and the Black’s were asked to come back to this Board with addition data.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Michele McMahon
City Clerk
City of Clarkson Valley