By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support local journalism.
Structure violates city code
McMinnvilles Board of Zoning Appeals has denied a variance request and ordered an addition built onto this home on Fuller Street be removed. The structure was built without a building permit and is 7 feet from the road.

One local family is being ordered by the city of McMinnville to remove an addition built onto their house. It was constructed without a building permit and does not meet the city’s setback requirement from the property line.
McMinnville Board of Zoning Appeals met Tuesday and rejected a variance request made by homeowners Ramirez Graciela and Maria Serrano of 114 Fuller Street for an addition they added onto their home without first getting a permit.
“I suggest we deny the request for the variance,” said Planning and Zoning director Nolan Ming. “They have added onto their house twice without a building permit. Both additions are nowhere near meeting the 35-foot setback requirement. One is 7 feet, 7 inches (from the property line) and the other is 17 feet, 4 inches (from the property line).”
The situation could have been avoided, said Ming, if the homeowners had applied for a permit because they would have been told the structures they wanted to build did not meet city code. Ming recommended removal of both
“We’ve had a call from the neighbor stating their opposition,” Ming said. “I would recommend these additions be removed. They are right up on the road. Well, one of them is. It’s unsafe to have a structure that close to the road.”
On the board and in attendance were David Marttala, chair, Jim Brock, Jerry Williamson, Tom Ward and Joey Haston.
Williamson pointed out the first addition is completely finished, while the second addition is almost finished.
“That last addition is not finished, is it? Looking at it, it doesn’t look finished,” said Williamson.
Ming said, “They have windows and doors in it now. They started without a permit. They came to get a permit and I told them it doesn’t meet the setbacks. They have asked for a variance so they can keep the addition.”
Williamson expressed the need to remove the second addition that is 7 feet, 7 inches from the road.
“We really don’t have a choice on this one,” he said. “It has to be taken down. It’s sad, but we don’t have a choice. It’s sad they didn’t check first. In their defense, if you look at that area it’s going back 50 years. There may not have been any rules then. Still, that one … I hate to say it, but it needs to come down.”
The assumption about the age of the area pre-dating the city’s current code on setbacks is correct, said Ming, because the 35-foot setback lands in the middle of the house.
Board members unanimously agreed to deny the variance request. While they instructed Ming to in-form the property owners the second addition built closest to the roadway must be removed, the first addition built without a permit and in violation of city code could remain.