Jenks Board Of Adjustment Meeting Recap: Variance Approved, Officers Elected

Bryan Wilks
Jul 29
3 min read

This transcript covers a meeting of the Jenks Board of Adjustment. The main item discussed was a request for a variance regarding a building's front build line at 531 West H Street. The board also handled procedural items like the election of officers and approval of previous meeting minutes.

Key Takeaways

The board approved a variance for a building at 531 West H Street to address a front build line encroachment.
The variance was granted because the building was built in compliance with zoning codes at the time, and enforcing current codes would create an unnecessary hardship.
The board members are up for reappointment in May, and a public training session is being considered.

Election Of Board Officers

The meeting began with the call to order and a discussion about the oath of office for new member Carrie Shust. It was confirmed that all board members had signed or would sign the oath. Following this, the board proceeded with the election of its officers. Eric Enyart was nominated and accepted the position of Chair. Patel was nominated and accepted the role of Vice Chair. Both elections were confirmed via roll call.

Approval Of Meeting Minutes

The board then reviewed the minutes from the meeting held on May 12th, 2022. After a brief confirmation that members had reviewed the minutes, a motion to approve was made, seconded, and passed by roll call.

Variance Request: 531 West H Street

The primary business of the meeting was a request for a variance from the front build line for the property located at 531 West H Street. The building, originally constructed in 1981 with an addition later, was found to be encroaching on the front build line according to current zoning codes. The property is zoned Industrial Light.

Background of the Variance

Staff explained that the need for the variance arose when the owner was selling the property, and a title issue was discovered due to the build line encroachment. While the property was platted in 1974, the building was constructed in 1981. Updates to the city's zoning code in 2023 meant the existing structure no longer conformed. It was noted that not only the front build line but also the north and south adjacent to the street had encroachments based on current standards. The staff also mentioned that essentially every structure on the lot is non-conforming by today's standards.

Legal and Practical Considerations

The applicant's representative, Lou Reynolds, explained that the building was constructed in compliance with the zoning codes in place at the time of its construction. He highlighted that the current zoning code has much stricter setback requirements than in the past. The issue came to light because if the building were to suffer damage (like a fire or tornado), it would require a special exception to rebuild due to its non-conforming status. Granting the variance would make the building lawful under the current code, resolving this potential issue.

It was also clarified that a separate issue involved a 50-foot building line restriction on the plat, which is a private restriction and distinct from the zoning variance being considered. This plat restriction was not the basis for the current zoning variance request.

Board Discussion and Decision

Board members discussed the criteria for granting a variance, which include demonstrating an undue hardship, unusual circumstances peculiar to the property, and that the variance would not harm the public good or the intent of the zoning code. It was noted that the hardship was not created by the current applicant. One board member disclosed they currently lease property at the location but stated it would not affect their decision.

The board visited the site and observed that while the building was closer to the street than some others in the area, it did not appear out of the ordinary, especially given its age. Staff confirmed no prior objections or complaints had been filed regarding this property. The board felt that the city likely permitted the building as it was constructed, making the current situation an unusual circumstance specific to this building.

After deliberation, the board found that the application met the necessary standards. A motion to approve the variance for the 25-foot encroachment was made and seconded. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Future Meetings and Training

Following the main agenda item, the board discussed upcoming meetings. It was noted that board members are up for reappointment in May. The possibility of holding a public training session in May was raised to review the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment according to state statutes and the city's UDO. The chair agreed to plan for this training, including providing dinner for the board members.

The meeting was then adjourned.