Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-26 BZA Minutes/ Town of Pulaski Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers April 27, 2026 Zoning Administrator, Nathan Smythers called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Mr. Talbert- Absent Mr. White- Aye Mr. Cox- Aye Mr. McAfee- Aye Ms. Saunders- Absent Mr. East- Aye Adoption of Agenda The motion was made by Mr. McAfee and seconded by Mr. White to adopt the agenda. The Motion passed unanimously. Adoption of Meeting Minutes January 7, 2026 Minutes The motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Cox to adopt the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Election of Officers Chair The motion was made by Mr. Cox and seconded by Mr. McAfee to nominate Ms. Saunders as Chair. The motion passed unanimously. Vice-Chair The motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Cox to nominate Mr. Talbert as Vice-Chair. The motion passed unanimously. Secretary The motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Cox to nominate Ms. Hale as Secretary. The motion passed unanimously. Adoption of Rules of Procedure The motion was made by Mr. McAfee and seconded by Mr. East to adopt the Town of Pulaski BZA Public Participation Rules. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing 603 Randolph Ave Variance Application Mr. Smythers read the Public Hearing advertisement published in the Patriot on April 10th and April 17, 2026. Mr. Smythers opened the Public Hearing. The applicants were also invited to speak if they wished. No outside public comments were recorded, and the discussion moved directly to questions from board members. Mr. White stated that he had finally located the property earlier that day and had visited the site. He observed a substantial height difference between the house and the proposed garage location and asked how the applicants intended to handle the elevation change and existing steps. The applicant replied that the steps were already in place. Mr. McAfee described visiting the site personally and noted the steep topography of the corner lot. He remarked that the proposed garage location appeared to be the only reasonably flat area available on the property. He acknowledged that homeowners generally want to make reasonable use of their own property, while also recognizing the setback issues involved. Discussion then focused on the alley behind the property. Mr. Cox asked whether the rear access route was truly an alley or simply a dirt road. Mr. Smythers confirmed it was an official alley, which is considered a public street under the zoning ordinance. Because the alley is classified as a public street, the accessory structure was required to meet a 35-foot setback from that side. Mr. Smythers noted that this had been the subject of several prior discussions with the applicants. The applicants explained that the alley sees very little use. Neighbors occasionally access it with trucks for gardening or other tasks, but regular traffic is minimal. They stated that during snowfall, the alley was not maintained or used, and garbage trucks do not travel through it. Residents instead place trash cans along Randolph Avenue or 6th Street for collection. The board reviewed the exact dimensions being requested. Mr. Smythers confirmed the proposal would maintain: A 10-foot setback from the rear property line along the alley A 35-foot setback from 6th Street A minimum 5-foot separation between the accessory structure and the house Staff also confirmed that the request came with a formal recommendation for approval from planning staff. Mr. Cox stated his only concern after visiting the site was the possibility that, because of the higher elevation of the garage pad, even a structure under the 20-foot accessory structure height limit might appear taller than the house when viewed from Randolph Avenue. The applicants indicated they did not intend to excavate significantly into the slope and would instead construct on the existing grade with footers. Mr. Cox concluded that because of the steep viewing angle from Randolph Avenue, the visual impact would likely be limited. Mr. Smythers closed the Public Hearing. The motion was made by Mr. Cox and seconded by Mr. White to approve the reduction of the rear setback along the alley to 10 feet for the accessory structure while maintaining the required 35-foot setback from 6th Street. Mr. Talbert- Absent Mr. White- Aye Mr. Cox- Aye Mr. McAfee- Aye Ms. Saunders- Absent Mr. East- Aye Future Meeting Date Mr. Smythers informed the board that another variance application had recently been submitted involving a similar issue on Prospect Avenue. Although staff review of that application had not yet been completed, it was expected to come before the board soon. Because of this pending application, staff anticipated the need for another public hearing near the end of May. Board members discussed availability. Mr. Cox stated they were unavailable until June 2. Based on that conflict, Ms. Hale suggested moving the next meeting to the first week of June and stated that another scheduling poll would be sent by email to determine the best date and time. Adjournment With no further business, Mr. Smythers adjourned the meeting at 6:11 p.m.