Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board of Adjustment recognizes three nonconforming structures to allow Haynesworth boundary adjustment
Loading...
Summary
The Centerville Board of Adjustment unanimously approved recognition of three existing nonconforming structures on parcels owned by Gary Haynesworth, clearing a path for a boundary line adjustment; approval was limited to the specific adjustment shown in the staff packet and quotes the city zoning code (CCC 12.22.0.060).
The Centerville City Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a request to recognize three existing nonconforming structures owned by Gary Haynesworth, allowing him to proceed with a boundary line adjustment affecting multiple parcels.
City planner Sydney DeWeese told the board the applicant, Gary Haynesworth (owner of Parcel 020960207), seeks recognition that three structures located on properties including 45 East Parish Lane (Parcel 020960082) and 420 North Main Street (Parcel 020960260) are existing nonconforming structures so a boundary line adjustment affecting parcels ending in 0260, 0082, 0243, 0244 and 0207 can move forward. Staff recommended approval.
Board member Lisa urged the board to quote the city code verbatim in the findings to avoid ambiguity and stressed the decision should be limited to the boundary adjustment before the board: "I'm just gonna copy the code and put it in here," she said, adding that any future subdivision or expansion would be a new, separate triggering event requiring further review.
Paula Tew moved to approve recognition and continuation of the three nonconforming structures, subject to conditions that the board quote Centerville Zoning Code (CCC 12.22.0.060) and limit any approval to the boundary adjustment shown in the packet. Dan Ditto seconded. Lisa proposed a small wording change to emphasize the board was not approving an expansion (changing "adjust or modify" to "adjust or expand"). The amended motion carried unanimously.
The board’s written findings state the applicant provided adequate evidence to support existence and continuation of the structures and that verification would not injure or negatively impact neighboring properties or public infrastructure. Staff noted that approval does not grant the right to expand the structures; if the property owner seeks subdivision or enlargement in the future, a separate review and decision would be required.
The board attached the standard findings and conditions referenced in CCC 12.22.0.060 to the motion and instructed staff to finalize the motion language and mail the decision to involved parties. The applicant was present at the meeting; no public opposition was recorded.
The board adjourned after completing the Haynesworth and subsequent Phillips matters.
