PLAINS – Mayor Michael Brinson vetoed a decision made by town council to grant a variance to a taxpayer who was planning on building her home on a lot here in town.

The debate took place during the monthly town council meeting on Monday, October 2.

The Planning Board had been put in charge of assessing the situation and reviewing the ordinance to see if the proposed building plans would adhere to the rules of the town.

“What we discussed during our meeting was setbacks, line of visibility and the bordering of county roads as far as city and county roads. Basically what we found out through our board is that we did not have enough information to make a uniform, 100 percent decision as far as our recommendation to present before the council,” said President of the Planning Board John Lemro.

The ordinance in question used the word generally – something that was open to interpretation and John stated because of that, the Planning Board was unable to come up with a decision on whether the house met requirements.

Town Attorney Richard Gebhardt helped explain to the town council why the word generally was used.

“You use generally so the line of sight could be used in two directions – that’s what generally is all about,” said Gebhardt.

Line of sight is defined as a straight line where an observer has an unobstructed vision.

In order to build a structure on the proposed lot, the builder would have to adhere to certain setbacks, otherwise known by definition to the town as “the minimum horizontal distance between the street wall of a building and the street line, or the wall of a building and the adjacent lot line.”

Gebhardt explained that certain setbacks are put in place so enough available room is left to add streetlights, sidewalks and other city commodities. The space is also important when emergency vehicles respond to situations.

The city ordinance stated that corner lots, which this property happened to be, should have a side yard that “shall generally conform to the frontage line of improvements on the adjoining properties.”

After further discussion the town council decided to grant the variance.

Council member Chris Allen stated he personally went out to the property and did not see a problem with the garage being located five feet off of the property line, instead of the proposed 20.

“There really is no reason for it be further back unless we want to say this is what we want cause of the ordinances,” said Allen.

According to Ron Warren, the surveyor for the project, the garage set close to the road because the proposed landowners wanted to have as much yard away from the street as possible for their kids.

Gebhardt warned the council of granting a variance in this situation.

“One thing I’d point out to you is once you start this process, it’s a pretty slippery trail until it’s case by case. You do it for one, you do it for someone else or you don’t do it for anyone,” said Gebhardt.

The town granted the variance with a 4 to 2 vote.

Mayor Michael Brinson explained that a variance could be granted because of a hardship or good cause.

“What this lady probably thinks is a good cause so she has adequate room for her grandchildren or her children….to her that’s a good cause,” said Mayor Brinson. However, the good cause was not great enough to convince Mayor Brinson to grant the variance.

Mayor Brinson stated he vetoed it for two reasons: one, because of the ordinance in place, and two, because no hardship or good cause was depicted.

“No council member made an effort to say, well, this is why it needs to be this way,” explained Mayor Brinson. “And not to sound like I’m being mean or I don’t care but trying to keep the kids in the yard isn’t a hardship. It might be a good cause but it is not in my mind something that would be right.”

Brinson said he had until the next meeting to make the council aware of the veto, however, since the issue was time sensitive, he made everyone quickly aware so that the proposed landowner would not buy a piece of property that would not meet her needs.

“I don’t think the council did their job. I don’t think they looked at it close enough,” said Mayor Brinson. “If we have a law and everybody doesn’t have to live by it then why does the town have the law?”

He went on to explain that as part of their duty, both the council and the mayor had to come to their meetings with no prejudices.

“When we sit down at those tables, we no longer have any friends and we don’t have any relatives. If there’s something in place, we have to keep it in place,” said Mayor Brinson.

If the council is unhappy with the ordinance, Mayor Brinson said changes can be made to it, whether that is getting rid of the ordinance, rewriting it or amending it.

“Just because it’s a law today, doesn’t mean it’s going to be a law three months from now,” explained Mayor Brinson.

If the town council does not agree with the mayor’s veto, they can overturn it and with a two-thirds vote, that may be possible.

“It could be very likely that my veto could be overturned by the people voting in favor of this again and if they do, okay. I tried to stay in the boundaries of the law and tried to make people understand what I’m trying to do here,” said Mayor Brinson.

Mayor Brinson set a special meeting date on Thursday, October 17 at 8 p.m. to further discuss the issue.