Board of Adjustments Minutes

T a n e y C o u n t y P la n n in g C o m m issio n
P. O. Box 383 • Forsyth, Missouri 65653
Phone: 417 546-7225 / 7226 ° Fax: 417 546-6861
website: www.taneycounty.orjj

AGENDA
TANEY COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2019, 6:00 P.M.
COUNTY COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
TANEY COUNTY COMMISSION

Call to Order:
Vice-Chairman Trent Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum
was established with three members present. They were: Trent Edwards, Rick Persinger
and Cory Roebuck. Staff present: Scott Starrett and Bonita Kissee-Soutee. The
governing statutes were read by Mr. Starrett who also read a statement outlining the
procedures for this meeting and presented the exhibits. Mr. Edwards swore in the
speakers before the hearings began.

Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Starrett to explain the bylaws and how they address a three
board member quorum and gave the applicants the opportunity to postpone until the
next regular Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Edwards took each hearing separate.

Review and Action:
Minutes, March 20, 2019; with no additions or corrections a motion was made by
Mr. Roebuck to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Mr. Persinger. The vote to
approve the minutes was unanimous.

Public Hearing:
#19-02A; JMS Property LLC, appeal of the Planning Commission decision on
February 11, 2019, denying Division III application #18-44 seeking nightly rental use
for 10 single family homes located on Sunrise Cove. The applicant for Case #19-02A
chose to continue to the public hearing. Mr. Starrett presented the staff report and
location maps of the site. Mr. Creedon explained his request and began by addressing
compatibility. In his opinion the use is compatible because of the strip mall adjacent to
it. He pointed out that according to the policy checklist the project scored positive. Mr.
Roebuck clarified Mr. Creedon's explanation, and asked if to his knowledge were there
any other uses of this kind in the subdivision. Mr. Creedon didn't know. Mr. Tim Davis
representing the applicant discussed the policy checklist and stated why. He researched
how the scoring was done in the past and found that no project that received a positive
score had ever been turned down, even some with negative scores had even been
approved. Mr. Davis discussed the original approval which gave multi-use for the whole
site, including time-shares since 2005. Matthew Creedon discussed Lot 9 and 7A were
recorded as time-shares. There were fifteen people signed up to speak against the
request. Their concerns were; voting of the Planning Commission, Division II
 procedures, that the property had not received approval for time-shares in their
opinion, property values, increased traffic, compatibility, emergency vehicle turnaround,
pedestrian safety, road conditions, noise, crime, parking, litter, that if a subdivision has
nightly rental federal government will not approve loans there, who owns Holt Lake,
and the lake previously being a dump. Mr. Persinger discussed why the duplexes were
permitted under Division II. Mr. Starrett addressed the question by explaining the
special use permitting. Mr. Creedon addressed the concerns. Mr. Edwards was
concerned about neighbors having to drive around on T to get to Holts Lake, and if the
applicant has operated nightly rentals before. The road is owned by the public. Mr.
Creedon stated that there are no covenants for most of the subdivision. Mr. Persinger
discussed special use permits and that this is not a special use. Mr. Starrett explained
why this is not a special use. Mr. Roebuck discussed how compatibility is addressed. Mr.
Creedon owns 40 undeveloped lots in the subdivision. Mr. Roebuck explained what the
Board was charged to decide at this meeting. Discussion followed. Mr. Persinger stated
that in his opinion that side of the lake is a commercial area, there is no residential
there, and that Mr. Creedon should maintain the road because it might create a traffic
issue. Also in Mr. Persingers opinion the applicant should share the burden and benefit
of the lake. Mr. Edwards discussed traffic going the long way around to access.
Discussion followed. After discussion Mr. Persinger made a motion to approve the
request to overturn the Planning Commission decision. Discussion followed regarding
adding an item to the Decision of Record, to repair the road and address the access
from 76, and the Lake. Mr. Roebuck seconded the motion. The vote was two in favor
and one not in favor. The appeal failed. Mr. Starrett explained the reconsideration
process.

#19-03A; JMS Property LLC, appeal of the Planning Commission decision on
February 11, 2019 denying Division III application #18-42 seeking nightly rental use for
6 duplexes located on Sunset Cove. The applicant chose to continue with the hearing.
Mr. Starrett presented the staff report and location map of the site. Mr. Tim Davis
representing the applicant pointed out that the property is already approved for m ulti­
family units, and that Mr. Creedon has come before the Commission to seek approval
and is willing to do what is necessary for approval. Mr. Creedon added that he had
agreed to bring the road up to County Standards. Discussion followed. All the homes
are connected to County Sewer at this point. Mr. Roebuck asked about the Planning
Commission vote. Mr. Creedon discussed the policy checklist. The concerns of the
property owners was; location of the road, knocking down the trees, turn around,
disturbing the view, debris in the lake from the tornado, heavy equipment ruining the
road, how long would the road be maintained, nightly rental affecting everyone in
Branson, and compatibility. Mr. Steve Creedon addressed the concerns, and pointed out
that his company has bought many lots in various subdivisions and built them out and
made them better in his opinion. Mr. Edwards asked about the rock ledge and how
much would need to be moved. Mr. Creedon stated that in his opinion none would.
Current zoning was discussed. Mr. Waterman pointed out that Mr. Creedon could start
up his own HOA. Mr. Roebuck stated that this Board cannot make a determination if the
Planning Commission should have addressed certain issues. Mr. Persinger discussed
items the Board could address. He stated that traffic would not ever have to go into the
subdivision because of the access from Hwy. 76. The applicant should address the road
conditions. Mr. Persinger made a motion to approve the request with the item
addressing the access road. Mr. Edwards seconded. The vote was two in favor and one
no. The appeal did not pass. Mr. Starrett addressed the reconsideration process.

#19-04A; JMS Property LLC, appeal of the Planning Commission decision on
February 11, 2019 denying Division III application #18-43 seeking nightly rental use for
3 duplexes located on Sunrise Cove. The applicant chose to continue. Mr. Starrett
presented the staff report and location map of the site. Mr. Creedon clarified the
request. He stated that this site already has roads. Mr. Tim Davis pointed out the policy
checklist having a positive score. No one spoke in favor. Concerns of the property
owners was; topography, traffic, ingress and egress, stormwater runoff, and parking.
Mr. Creedon addressed the concerns. Other discussion from the public regarded an
electric gate and compatibility. The Board discussed the issues. Mr. Persinger
maintained that in his opinion the use is compatibility. Further discussion followed. Mr.
Roebuck made a motion to approve based upon the decision of record. Mr. Persinger
seconded. The vote to approve was unanimous.

#19-05A; SMBZ LLC, appeal of the Planning Commission decision on February
11, 2019, denying Division III application #18-41 seeking to develop Woodbridge
Estates into a two-unit multi-family subdivision located on Woodbridge Estates Drive
and Jamie Court. The applicant chose to continue. Mr. Starrett presented the staff
report and location maps of the site. Mr. Creedon clarified the request. All setbacks can
be maintained. Mr. Tim Davis representing the applicant pointed out the policy
checklist. Concerns of the public were; compatibility, access, added traffic, narrow
roads, density, blasting, safety of the children in the neighborhood, type of people who
rent there, ingress and egress, parking, snow removal, emergency vehicle access and
turn around, trash, property maintenance, and the road is steep. Mr. Creedon
addressed the concerns. After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Persinger to deny
the appeal based upon no error being made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Roebuck
seconded. The vote was unanimous to deny.

Old and New Business:
No discussion.

Adjournment:
With no other business on the agenda for April 17, 2019 the meeting adjourned
at 9:44 p.m.