Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies variance for Raleigh Avenue bathroom addition
Summary
The Humboldt Water Zoning Adjustments board voted 3-2 to deny a variance request for a proposed bathroom addition at 208 Raleigh Avenue after a public hearing; the applicant was invited to meet with staff to discuss options.
The Humboldt Water Zoning Adjustments board denied a variance request for an addition at 208 Raleigh Avenue after a public hearing, voting 3-2 and falling short of the four affirmative votes required for approval.
Applicant Russ Gurley, who identified himself as the property owner at 208 Raleigh Avenue, told the board he planned to add a bathroom to the rear of the house and that the existing exterior wall sits about 8.8 feet from the neighbor’s property line, rather than the 10-foot setback required. "So we're adding a bathroom onto 1 of the to the back part of the house," Gurley said, describing the addition as running straight back from the existing wall.
Board members and staff questioned design alternatives. A staff member said they did not find a prior variance in city records: "I don't think that there was a variance approved. Based on our records, I couldn't I never found a previous variance." Gurley told the board reducing the bathroom’s width or moving the unit inward would require cutting into an existing deck, alter roof lines and complicate HVAC work; he said the new air-conditioning unit would be moved only a few feet to accommodate the addition.
During deliberations a motion was made to approve the variance as presented and a second recorded. The roll call votes were recorded in the transcript as: Mister Johnson — no; Mister Purple — yes; Mister Nieves — yes; Miss Childs — yes; Miss Ham — no. The board chair explained a supermajority of four affirmative votes is required for approval; the measure received three yes votes and therefore failed.
After the vote the chair told the applicant, "Your request for variance has been denied at this time," and staff offered to meet with Gurley to explain the reasons and possible next steps. The applicant asked when such a meeting could occur; staff directed him to email or call to schedule.
The case was identified in the record as BZA case SV-25-01-01. The board also announced there will be no February meeting and that nominations for officers will be considered at the March meeting.
