Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2011 - MinutesBZA Members Present: Mr. Carlton Wright, Chairman Mr. Kevin Barnes Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Eldon Karr Mr. Eric Thomas Staff Present: Mr. John Murphy, Secretary Mr. Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. Chris Patriarca Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Mr. Wright called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Barnes made a motion to approve the January 19, 2011, minutes. Mr. Karr seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. CHANGES TO CODE OF VIRGINIA AND ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Joe Obenshain provided a brief history of the statute changes regarding variance laws. He stated the Virginia General Assembly was concerned about the development standards and the term "approaching confiscation." He discussed case law, providing examples of issues with this law. He stated the General Assembly has now removed the verbiage regarding confiscation. He stated other findings will remain applicable. Mr. Barnes inquired about the potential result if a former case was heard again by the BZA. Mr. Obenshain discussed this issue, noting other standards would still need to be met. PUBLIC HEARING The petition of a variance requested by William J. Pinkerton of Section 30- 41- 3(B)1a of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum front setback for a primary structure from 30 feet to 25.6 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct a cover over an existing stoop creating a covered porch at 5428 Linda Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr. Chris Patriarca wrote the staff report and was present to answer questions regarding the variance request. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Mr. Scott Geddes, Esquire, stated the petitioner is requesting to reduce the front setback in order to prevent water damage at the front door and the foyer flooring inside the house. Mr. William Pinkerton stated he bought the property approximately 19 years ago. He stated at the time the flooring inside the front entry way was spongy so they repaired the flooring. He stated the water continued to blow underneath the doorway so they replaced the door. He stated they thought a front porch would correct the issue. When the builder consulted the county for a permit they realized the setback was insufficient. Mr. Thomas noted some other homes in the area have larger front yards. Mr. Pinkerton also stated other homes in the area have retaining walls due to topography. Mr. Geddes presented pictures which illustrating similar coverings on adjacent and nearby homes. He reviewed the current statute changes. He stated granting the variance request will alleviate a clearly demonstrative hardship. He stated the existing stoop will not be modified only the covering over the porch. He stated the property is located on a curved lot which makes the setbacks smaller. He reviewed the damage which the petitioners have incurred as a result of water issue. He stated none of the neighbors have objections to the request for the variance. He stated the slope of the property has caused a hardship. He stated there would be no right -of -way infringements. He stated it will be unnoticeable to the other property owners. Mr. Karr inquired about dimensions of canopy. Mr. Geddes discussed this issue, noting the canopy will not extend over stoop but instead cover it. Mr. Pinkerton stated the dimensions will be the same as the existing stoop. Mr. Murphy and members discussed dimensions and setback requirements. Mr. Wright opened the public hearing for public comment With no citizens requesting to speak, Mr. Wright closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Karr made a motion to approve the variance request based on the findings: the property was acquired by the owner in good faith, that the property is an unusual shape, topography, and is affected by the weather, a strict application of the zoning ordinance would affect the use of the property, such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. Mr. Jones seconded the motion which passed with the following vote: Page 2 of 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 AYES: Barnes, Jones, Karr, Thomas, Wright NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None COMMENTS Mr. Murphy stated there will not be a meeting in October 19, 2011. There being no further business, Mr. Wright adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan McCoy, Recording cretary Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals John Murphy, Secretary Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 3