Crestwood Board of Adjustment Meeting – November 8, 2024

The Crestwood Board of Adjustment met on November 8, 2024, at 7:00 PM via Zoom to hear a single variance application (BZA‑4‑24) for property at 939 Rayburn Avenue. The applicant sought two variances to build a new attached garage: a side‑yard setback variance of 2.75 feet (reducing the required 7‑foot setback to 4.25 feet) and a front‑yard setback variance of 0.6 feet (reducing the required 30‑foot setback to 29.4 feet). After testimony and deliberation, the board voted 3‑2 against approval, resulting in denial of the variances.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar items were considered.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Applicant (Bryan Pence, representing trustee Dennis Bault): Mr. Pence explained that the existing carport already encroaches into the setbacks (6.9 feet from the west side lot line, and the front corner of the house is at 29.4 feet). The proposed garage would match the existing alignment and was described as a minimal encroachment—less than 10 % of the garage’s volume in the rear corner. He stated that neighbors were “thrilled” about the updates and that no opposition had been received. He noted the property is being extensively renovated (estimated $150,000 investment, including $28,000 in foundation piering) and that the eventual sale proceeds (90‑95 %) would go to charities.
• City Planner (Danny Jendusa): Provided property details: a 1½‑story house built in 1969, approximately 1,350 sq ft, on a wedge‑shaped 8,237‑sq‑ft lot (R‑4 district). The existing carport is nonconforming. The proposed garage otherwise complies with code except for the two requested variances.
• No members of the public spoke for or against the application.

Discussion Items

• Variance Requests: The board discussed the necessity of the 0.6‑foot front‑yard variance (to align the garage with the existing house front) and the 2.75‑foot side‑yard variance. Chairman Liddy expressed concern about setting a precedent for structures less than 5 feet from the property line. Board member Hubbard questioned the garage depth and whether reducing it could eliminate the need for the side variance; applicant Pence responded that cutting the depth by 4 feet would make the garage unusable for parking.
• Garage Dimensions: The applicant stated the interior width would be just under 19 feet and depth a little over 20 feet (drawing shows 22 feet depth). The existing slab is about 19 feet wide. Board member Hubbard noted typical two‑car garages are 20 feet wide by 20‑24 feet long.
• Water Issues and Conditions: Board member Hubbard proposed adding a condition requiring disclosure of past water issues to future buyers. The city attorney advised such a condition might exceed the board’s authority and that disclosure is already required by state statute. The board voted unanimously (5‑0) to impose no additional conditions.
• Factors for Consideration: The board voted individually on the four required statutory factors. Votes were split:
  • Factor 1 (property acquired in good faith, unique shape): 3‑2 in favor (Breeding, Day, Gregory yes; Hubbard, Liddy no).
  • Factor 2 (variance results from conditions unique to the property): 2‑3 against (Breeding, Day yes; Gregory, Hubbard, Liddy no).
  • Factor 3 (literal interpretation would deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed): 2‑3 against (Breeding, Day yes; Gregory, Hubbard, Liddy no).
  • Factor 4 (special conditions not created by applicant): 3‑2 in favor (Breeding, Day, Hubbard yes; Gregory, Liddy no).
  • Factor 5 (variance would not confer special privilege): 0‑5 against (all members voted no).

Key Outcomes

• Motion to approve both variances as requested (with no additional conditions) was made by Board member Day and seconded by Breeding. The vote was 2‑3 (Breeding and Day in favor; Gregory, Hubbard, and Liddy opposed). Because four affirmative votes are required for approval, the motion failed.
• Variance Denied: The chairman declared the variances denied. The applicant acknowledged the decision and indicated he would discuss alternatives (e.g., a smaller “car and‑a‑half” garage) with the architect.
• Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 PM.

Note: The agenda and minutes list the meeting date as November 7, 2024; however, the instruction provided specifies November 8, 2024. The summary above uses the date given in the instruction.