Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2004 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS –MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING –JUNE 16, 2004 PRESENT: Mr. Eric Thomas, Chairman Mr. Eldon Karr Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Kevin Barnes Mr. Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Mr. Eric Thomascalled the meeting to order at 7:02p.m. Mr. Thomas requested a moment of silence in memory of Ms. Shelly Cox, daughter of Roanoke County Staff Member, Mr. WalterCox. Everyone present participated in the memoriam. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jonesmoved to approve the agenda. Mr. Karrseconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1.Variance requested byPhilip R. Givens of Section 30-33-3(B)1.b of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 36 feet to 15 feet and of Section 30-33-3(B)2.b of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 1 foot. The purpose of this request is to construct a detached garage located at 815 Eddies Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Philip Givens, 815 Eddies Road, stated the purpose of his request is to build a garage near the back of his lot near Shirley Road.He explained his property has two fronts. He stated the proposed garage would be 22’ x 24’. He stated the garage would be similar in appearance to his house. He stated his land is sloped. Mr. Wright asked the petitioner who owns lot 6. Mr. Givens stated he owns both lot 6 and lot 7. Mr. Wright asked the petitioner if he would be willing to move the property line. Mr. Givens stated he would be willing to eliminate the property line between the two lots. He expressed concern regarding lot6 becoming his side yard with side yard restrictions. Mr. Karr expressed concern regarding setback minimum if the property line is relocated. He noted if the property line is moved the need for a side yard setback variance would be eliminated. Mr. Givens againagreed to remove the property line,if necessary. Mr. Karr stated the petitioner would then have three (3) front yards which would disallow an accessory structure being built in the front yard. Heasked staffif the garage was attached to the house wouldit still be viewedas an accessory building.Mr. Beard affirmed it would no longer be viewed as an accessory building. Mr. Wright stated they have tried to get the county to deal with the corner lot issue on numerous occasions. He stated he is tired of granting variances for corner lot issues. He stated if they continue to grant the variances, the county will never address this problem. He stated he cannot justify a hardship in this case. He stated he would not be able tojustify a variance if the lot line is removed. He asked Mr. Obenshain about the procedure in order to remove the lot line. Mr. Obenshain stated a new deed 1 would be createdcombining the two lots. Mr. Beard explained if the lot line is removedit will create three front yardswhich will disallow a detached garage on the property. Mr. Karr asked if the primary entrance would be the doorway outside the back of garage. Mr. Givensstated the sliding doors would be the primary entrance. Mr. Karr suggestedconstructing a breezeway. Mr. Beard explained the ordinance regulationsregarding breezeways. Mr. Wrightnoted a fence does not qualify as a wall. Mr. Karr asked about the type of fence to be installed. Mr. Givens stated the fence would be six feetin height. Mr. Beard stated the fence may not meet the merits of a wall. He also stated it is necessary to have a roof over the breezeway. Mr. Wright stated they need to look tothe future to regarding approval of the variance. Mr. Obenshain stated the Supreme Court is firm in their position regarding reversing the decisions of three localities on variances of this type. He stated the hardship needs to be substantial. Mr. Wright asked the petitioner if he would move the garage closer to the house. Mr. Givensexpressed concern regarding placement of garage affecting driveway position. Mr. Karr asked about access to garage. Mr. Givensstated he would enter the garage straight from Eddies Road and could back in from Shirley Road. Mr. Karr asked about placement of garage doors. Mr. Givensaffirmed the garage doors will face the existing house. Mr. Karr stated it is an unusual conditiondue to the configuration of the lot. He stated the petitioner is being hampered by the existing ordinance. He stated if the lot line is eliminated the garage would need to be attached to the house. Mr. Wright stated removal of the line is the only way he would be comfortable granting thisvariance. Mr. Barnes suggested vacating the property line and constructing a breezeway between the two garages. Mr. Givensexpressed concern regarding additional construction costs. Mr. Jones explained if the property lineis vacated, it may be necessary to come back to the BZA to receive a variance to build garage in the front yard. Mr. Beard noted the ordinance does not define roof or wall; he stated thebuilding code mayhave that information. Mr. Karrmotioned to grant the requested variance,due to hardship caused by the lot configuration and topography,for reducingthe minimum front yard setback from 36 feet to 15 feet on the condition that the property line between tax parcels 45.01-2-41 and 45.01-2-42 be vacated; and deny the request to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 20 feet to 1 foot. Mr. Jonesseconded the motion with the following vote: AYES:Thomas, Jones, Wright, Karr, Barnes NAYS:None ABSENT:None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Karrmoved to approve the April 21, 2004minutes.Mr. Jonesseconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES:Thomas, Jones, Wright, Karr, Barnes NAYS:None ABSENT:None 2 COMMENTS Mr. Beard provided an update on the Alfred and Patsy Saunders case. He stated the house has been moved. He stated the county will continue to monitor the situation. He noted the bond will be released to Mr. Mitchell upon completion. Mr. Obenshain explained recent VA Supreme Court cases regarding BZA decisions are spread throughout the state. Mr. Wright noted the BZA has to tow the line on variance requests. Mr. Obenshain concurred the BZA is limited to preventing inadvertent confiscation of property. He stated the ordinance is adopted by elected officials which represent the citizens. He noted the BZA is an appointed administrative body and cannot change the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the BZA allows flexibility if the ordinance unfairly inhibits the property owner. He stated the BZA should be careful when exercising its authority. Mr. Wright noted the Givens case did not confiscate the property since the property was intended as a single family dwelling. He noted all citizens have things they would like to do on their property but are restricted from doing so by the ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 3