Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/2009 - MinutesBZA Members Present: Mr. Eldon Karr, Chairman Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Eric Thomas Mr. Kevin Barnes Mr. Richard Jones Staff Present: Mr. John Murphy, Secretary Mr. Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Tammi Wood Mr. Chris Patriarca Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Mr. Karr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wright made a motion to approve the November 18, 2009, minutes. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Barnes nominated Mr. Wright as Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals for 2010. There were no other nominations. The nomination passed with a vote of 4-0-1, Mr. Wright abstaining. Mr. Wright nominated Mr. Barnes as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. The nomination passed with a vote of 4-0-1, Mr. Barnes abstaining. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES Mr. Murphy was reappointed as Secretary for 2010 calendar year. Mr. Murphy recommended reappointment of Mr. Richardson and Mr. Patriarca as alternate BZA Secretaries for 2010. Mr. Karr made a motion to accept staff's recommendation. Mr. Wright seconded the motion which passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING The petition of Jeffrey L. and Rhonda G. Scott, for the request of a variance to Section 30-33-3(B)2b, of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, in order to reduce the side setback for an accessory structure, proposed to be located between the front building BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 2009 line and rear building line of the primary structure, with a setback reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet located at 5769 Cox Hopkins Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (continued from November 18, 2009) Mr. Jeffrey Scott, 5769 Cox Hopkins Road, discussed the purpose of his request, noting his property has private water and sewer. Mr. Karr asked if the ordinance is imposing a hardship on the use of his property. Mr. Scott stated space on the parcel would be wasted if he was required to use the standard setbacks. He stated he prefers to place the driveway in a more sensible location. He stated adjoining neighbors do not object to his request for a variance. Mr. Karr inquired about the distance the garage would be from the adjacent neighbor's house. Mr. Scott stated it would be approximately 20 feet. Mr. Jones inquired about the side fence line. Mr. Scott stated the fence line would be about 3 -4 feet inside his property line. Mr. Barnes inquired about topography of the property. Mr. Scott described the topography and placement of existing non - conforming storage building. Mr. Barnes inquired about items which would be stored in garage. Mr. Scott stated he is restoring an antique vehicle and would use the garage for storage of parts, as well as his boat. He stated the carport does not sufficiently protect the vehicle from the elements. Mr. Barnes inquired about the distance needed to maneuver the boat and cars. Mr. Scott discussed this issue. Mr. Thomas inquired about well and septic locations. Mr. Scott reviewed the site plan. Mr. Jones inquired about attaching the garage to the existing structure. Mr. Murphy discussed this issue. Mr. Scott discussed the original placement of the house and the difficulty involved if garage is placed in another location. Mr. Karr discussed the topography of the site. Mr. Wright made a motion to deny the petition, stating there is no hardship, the topography is not exceptional, and no extraordinary conditions exist. The motion was not seconded. Mr. Barnes made a substitute motion to approve the petition, stating the two existing buildings are already non - conforming regarding the setbacks, he stated the property was acquired by the owner in good faith, he stated exceptional topographical conditions exist, the issues are confined to the area. He stated 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 failed with the following vote: AYES: Barnes, Jones NAYES: Karr, Thomas, Wright ABSTAIN: None Mr. Obenshain discussed procedural issues. Page 2 of 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 2009 Mr. Wright made a substitute motion to deny the petition, stating there is no hardship, the topography is not exceptional, and no extraordinary conditions exist. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion which failed with the following vote. AYES: Thomas, Wright NAYES: Barnes, Karr, Jones ABSTAIN: None Mr. Barnes made another substitute motion to approve the petition, stating the two existing buildings are already non - conforming regarding the setbacks, he stated the property was acquired by the owner in good faith, he stated exceptional topographical conditions exist, the issues are confined to the area. He stated 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: AYES: Barnes, Karr, Jones NAYES: Thomas, Wright ABSTAIN: None COMMENTS There were none. There being no further business, Mr. Karr adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Carter, Carter, Recording Secretary Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals John 'Murphy, Secretary Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 3