Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2003 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS –MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING –NOVEMBER 19, 2003 PRESENT: Mr. Eric Thomas Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Eldon Karr, Chairman Mr. Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Karr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jones moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNeil , which carriedunanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1.Variance requested by Marvin L. Gilliam of Section 30-41-3(B)3.a of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the principal structure rear yard setback from 25 feet to 22 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct an addition (patio enclosure) onto the dwelling located at 1323 Cedar Hill, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. Marvin L. Gilliam, 1323 Cedar Hill, spoke regarding the petition. He stated when he purchased the home in October 2002, he assumed all contractual requirements. He stated he signed with Cannon (contractor) in September 2003. Cannon discovered the setback shortage while at the Roanoke County Permit Counter. He stated he will lose his down payment if his variance is denied. He stated the addition of the patio enclosure will increase the tax base for the property and provide an improvement for the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas asked the petitioner if a survey was performed on the property prior to purchase. Mr. Gilliam affirmed a survey was performed. Mr. Thomas asked if the deck was included on the survey. Mr. Gilliam stated the deck was not on the survey. Mr. Karr stated a hardship cannot be considered due to the possible loss of the petitioner's $6000 down payment. He stated a hardship has to be a characteristic of the site such as topography. He stated the lot size may be applicable due to overbuilding by the developer. Mr. McNeil asked why the petitioner did not acquire a building permit prior to hiring the contractor. Mr. Gilliam stated he assumed everything was ok. Mr. McNeil noted Mr. Gilliam could have saved money had he researched the project before beginning the work. Mr. McNeil motioned to grant the variance request based on nonconformities throughout the neighborhood. 1 Mr. Jones seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES:McNeil, Thomas, Jones, Karr NAYS: ABSENT:Wright 2.Variance requested by Strauss Construction Corporation of Section 30-41-3(B)4 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required front (corner) yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct new single family dwellings located at (future 6092 and 6093, respectively) the terminus of Cezanne Court, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Steve Strauss, 3649 Peakwood Drive, spoke regarding the petition. He referred to Section 30-41-3(B)4, noting side yard characteristics with a corner lot. He read the definition of "corner lot." He stated the spirit of the law is in the meanings of"street" and "corner lot." He then read the definition of "street." Mr. Karr noted the categories of interpretation. Mr. Strauss read Section 30-24-1(B)1 in support of his own petition. He stated the original road went nearly to Back Creek. He stated the relocation of Route 221 would leave Cezanne Court approximately 45 feet above the new Route 221. He stated the hardship is that the lots were legally platted before condemnation occurred. He stated staff interpretation placed R.O.W.'s adjacent to each other. He stated in the spirit of the ordinance he would agree that 10 feet side yard is reasonable. He stated a 30 feet box lot is "unbuildable" which would create a need for him to ask VDOT for funds. He stated he is challenged by the idea of backing the house up since this would make the house below Cezanne Court. He also stated Section 30-24-1(B)2 is applicable to VDOT (condition of immediately adjacent property) and Section 30-24-1(B)3 is practically confiscation. Mr. Jones asked the petitioner if the lots shown were on the record map. Mr. Strauss explained the plat copies to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Strauss had been compensated. Mr. Strauss stated he had received a minor amount of compensation for 9A-1. He stated VDOT was askedto take as little as possible. Mr. Karr asked when the petitioner was made aware of the shortage. Mr. Strauss stated approximately 45 days ago. Mr. Karr noted Lot 18 on the tax map as a lot line adjustment. Mr. Strauss stated some of the infrastructure such as sewer, water meters, and pedestals has been installed. He stated storm drains and basement adjustment would have been a better idea prior to these installations. He stated condemnation occurred after much of the work had been completed. Mr. Karr asked if utilities were in by early 1990's. Mr. Strauss noted tax map lot 96.07-2-12.1 was a starting point for years of utility work. Mr. Karr stated a "standard footprint" is not enough reason to approve this request. Mr. Strauss stated owners need a semblance of a back yard. He stated topography renders this area unbuildable. Mr. Karr offered to delay the decision since Mr. Wright was absent from the hearing. Mr. Strauss asked if a discussion of the issues could be conducted. Mr. Jones stated this could be viewed as an interpretation of the definition of a "corner lot." Mr. Karr asked if the request should be changed to an Administrative Appeal. Mr. Jones motioned to continue the requested variance. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion withthe following vote: 2 AYES:McNeil, Thomas, Jones, Karr NAYS: ABSENT:Wright APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jones moved to approve minutes of October 15, 2003 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas, which carried unanimously. COMMENTS Mr. Jones moved to review the conditions of the Saunders' decision. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNeil, which carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Carter Approved: Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 3