Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/21/2002 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS — MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING —AUGUST 21, 2002 PRESENT: Mr. Eldon Tarr Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr, Eric Thomas Mr, Richard Jones, Chairman Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Mr. Chris Lowe Mr, Pahl Mahoney, County Attorney Mr. Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Mr, Richard ,Tones called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Wright moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Karr seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1. Variance requested by Donald E. And Cheri A. Johnson of Section 30-91-- 2(A ) 1. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to allow the parking of a boat in front of the front building line located at 2239 Pommel Drive, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, Mr, Edward Natt spoke representing the petitioners, He gave an in depth history of the Johnson case. He stated the case has been heard first by the BZA, then Roanoke County Circuit Court and now the BZA again. He stated the Johnson's under the ordinance in effect at the time they purchased the property, were allowed to park the boat in the side yard,. He stated when the ordinance changed, the Planning Department cited him as being in violation of the ordinance since the boat had been moved from the site, The Johnson's did not appeal the violation to the BZA within the 30 days as required. Mr. Natt cited a Supreme Court case, BZA vs. Kahill regarding nonconformance because of discontinuance of use of a restaurant. He stated the reality is if you have a boat you will move it in order to use it. He reviewed the Johnson's options regarding yard design. He stated that moving the fence, changing the tree line, or moving the dog pen would cost minimally approximately $4,500. He referred to the Staff Report stating Stoneybrook is a busy collector neighborhood road malting it difficult to turn at a 90 degree angle to park the boat. He stated allowing the boat to be parked in the side yard will not cause property values to decease. He referred to a list of neighbors which support the Johnson's, recognizing them in the audience. He asked that the board look at the original decision, stating it was wrong. He restated the safety factor of backing in and out onto a busy narrow road, Ms. Cheri Johnson said they added a loop to their driveway so they would not block two lanes of traffic on a blind hill when backing in and out onto Stoneybrook Drive.. She stated the average speeding citation is 39 mph. She stated school buses are at risk on this hill, She stated having to change their yard design would be a - financial hardship and take 46% of their backyard. Mr. Scott Johnson, son of petitioners, 4394 Summerset Drive, read a letter from Janet Augustine, 3035 Hereford Road, in support of the Johnsons, She cited other instances where residents are in violation of this ordinance. She asked that safety be taken into account as well as the amount it will diininish the backyard. Ms. Treva Richter, 5452 Warwood Drive, spoke in support of the Johnsons citing safety issues should be considered. Ms. Sue Hunter, 4536 Andover Court, read a letter in support of the petition from Dr. Renee Douglas, 2303 Cantle Lane. Mr, Tom Magri, 2244 Pelham Drive, stated he sees no aesthetic problem with the boat in the side yard. He stated it is not unsafe now but will be if changed. Mr. Roger Johnson, brother of the petitioner, 8213 Sundance Circle, gave support history of the boat being legally parked in the past. He stated he is a boat dealer and lie has a problem backing the boat out of the yard. Ms. Patricia Hawley, 2240 Pommel Drive, stated she supports the Johnsons. She stated it is not an eyesore but more like a car. She also stated the proposal will create safety issues. Ms. Christine Pickard, 5460 Stoneybrook Drive, stated she wants the petition denied. She stated she wants the board to'hold the line' on variances in Sugarloaf Estates. She was concerned the view from the front yard would cause property values to Iower. She stated she is in favor of the design with the entrance on Pommel Drive. She stated she has a trailer and has not had problems backing across Stoneybrook Drive,. She expressed concern the variances will destroy the neighborhoods, She stated the variances cause neighbors to take sides. Ms_ Tiffany Johnson, daughter of the petitioners, spoke tearfully in favor of her parents. She stated the road is unsafe with cars going too fast. She stated the new design will cause accidents. She also stated the expense may put her college education at risk. Mr, Bill Hunter, 4536 Andover Court, spoke in support of the variance referencing many biblical examples of boats being important historically. Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, supports the staff decision to deny the variance. He gave a brief legal history of the case. He stated .fudge Strickland dismissed the appeal regarding the decision made by the zoning administrator, not the variance. He cited the zoning ordinance regarding the parking of the boat behind building Iine. He called Chris Lowe, Landscape Architect, to present conforming design options. Mr. Lowe offered four options which would meet the ordinance, He stated Option 1 requires more paving, Option 2 one tree would be disturbed but minimal paving would be necessary, Option 3 requires minimal paving but does create a sight distance problem, Option 4 affects the integrity of the fenced yard. Mr. Mahoney read the Code of Virginia requirements for granting a variance. He stated the petitioners do not have an undue hardship, the rode 7 applies to all corner lots, and it will not change the character of the property and area around it. He stated they have failed to meet the statutory burden of being granted a variance. He stated the County has given good options. Mr. Natt disagreed with Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Natt questioned Mr, Lowe's turning radius expertise. He stated the disadvantages of the options outweigh the advantages. Mr. Natt referred to the statute on variances stating the hardship is the petitioner did what was needed at one time to be lawful. He stated this situation is unique,. He stated it will cause substantial detriment if not granted. He also stated Ms. Pickard has a camper which she parks in her fi yard on occasion, Mr. McNeil asked if the present parking situation creates a safety issue. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Bill Richardson told hire the boat would probably be ok in its current position, Mr. Jones asked of Mr. Joe Obenchain, County Attorney, if it is possible to start the clock again for a ruling on the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Obenshain stated not with the same issue. Mr. ,Tones asked if a variance could be issued solely for the Johnson's current boat and if the boat was sold the variance would be voided. Mr. Obenshain stated the variance follows the property and cannot be given those limitations. Mr. Karr complemented the presentations. He stated he feels the previous variance decision was correct. He stated it is unfortunate the Zoning Administrator's decision was not appealed in a timely manner since they are interested in exercising justice. He stated he would deny the variance by itself Mr. Karr motioned to deny the requested variance noting that the property is not exceptionally narrow, shallow or of an unusual shape or size, exceptional topographic conditions are not present and no extraordinary condition exists affecting this site. Denying this request does not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the property and granting a variance would not alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation„ Mr. Wright seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Wright, McNeil, Karr NAYS: .Tones ABSENT: Thomas 2. Variance requested by Sims Automotive, Incorporated of Section 30-54-3(B)La ,a of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard building setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and to reduce the front yard parking setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct a new car dealership located on the east side of U.S. 220, west of Stable Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr, Dennis Crank, Waldvogel, Poe & Cronk, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated the attorney for Sums Automotive, Mary Ellen Goodlatte, Esquire, was unable to attend hearing. Mr, Crank gave a history of the property. He stated their effort to conform to the Clearbrook Overlay has been phenomenal. He stated with improved access from Franklin Road it pushed the building down which has made it harder to develop. He stated the property will be well landscaped and designed with 1:30 trees. He stated the narrowness of the property makes it difficult to allow for safe traffic flow around Building C and Building D. He stated the front yard setback creates a hardship. He stated neighbors are ready for the development, Mr. Hugh Bennett explained the site plan, Mr. Jones asked what type of materials and presentation will be used on the side facing Stable Road, Mr. Bennett stated the property will be open -ended on that side. Mr, .Jones asked the height of the structures, Mr. Bennett stated the building height will be 16 feet and the parking structure will be 12 feet, Mr. James Walker also stated the parking structure will be open - ended, Mr, Bennett explained the back of the property is lower on the southern end and it is impossible to get around the building safely. Mr. Jones stated the concern is more with circulation than parking, Mr, Wright asked if Showroom D will comply without the variance. Mr. Walker stated Showroom D is smaller than the other's but cannot get fire truck around the building as it is currently. Mr. Walker stated the red shaded line is what they are requesting. He reviewed the site plan again. Mr. Karr referred to the staff report stating that he understood they were asking for a setback around the entire building. Mr. Beard stated the front setback is applicable to Route 220 as well as Stable Road. Mr. Jones verified Stable Road again. Mr. Bennett agreed. Mr. Bennett stated with the setback change they would not lose any parking spaces. Mr. Karr stated the site plan drawing indicates the setback is all the way around the building. Mr. Beard stated it is standard to request the setback variance in this manner even though it may be needed on one side. Mr. Beard stated the site has no setback shortage, Ms. Cheryl Taylor, 5940 Twelve O`clock Knob Road, spoke stating the building will impact the privacy of the neighboring properties, She expressed concern about buffers. She stated she is trusting the BZA to make a good faith decision regarding this development. She also stated the surrounding homeowners are seeking reassurance regarding this development. Mr. Jones stated citizen input is encouraged. Mr. Cronk stated the hardship is the elevation changes of approximately 60 feet and the narrowness of the property. He stated some of the property is AV and some C2. Mr. .Jones noted the developer has worked with the topography moving structures forward with regard to the width and depth of the property. Mr. McNeil expressed approval of the site plan commenting on the extraordinary layout regarding the width to depth ratio. He stated they have made an extra effort: to meet requirements that will not be detrimental to the property. Mr Kam stated he wanted to amend the request to include moving Parking Structure 2 and 3 forward so effective length of the setback variance is not as long. He suggested limiting the length of the variance to protect the homeowners on Stable Road. Mr. McNeil moved to grant the requested variance noting that the property was acquired in good faith, the site is exceptionally shaped (encircled by roads) and that a strict ordinance application would unreasonably restrict use of the property Mr., Karr seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Wright, McNeil, Karr, .Tones NAYS: None ABSENT: Thomas 3. Variance requested by Hughes Associates Architects of Section 30-41-3(B)1.a of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard building setback from .30 feet 4 to 13 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct an addition onto the principal structure (Bonsack Baptist Church) located at 4845 Cloverdale Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. Jeff Parkhill, Hughes Associates Architects, spoke for the petitioner. He stated since there is explosive population growth in the area, there is a need for the church expansion request. He stated there are few choices to locate the building,. He stated the church has increasing daycare needs_ He stated he does not want to separate buildings for daycare security purposes.. He stated since the only adjacent neighbor is a warehouse, the addition will not create any impact on neighbors. He stated if the building is relocated, it will reduce the land for a playground, Mr,. Jones asked if the petitioner had studied any other floorplans to expand the narrowness of the building. Mr. Parkhill stated they want easy access to the daycare for parents when picking up and dropping off children.. Mr. Wright asked if the building could be squared off on the Kingsman Road side of the building. Mr. Parkhill stated they would lose 1 112 classrooms if they put a niche back into the plan. Mr. Karr asked for an explanation of the petitioner's hardship. Mr, Parkhill stated reduction of classrooms will reduce community activities. Mr. Parkhill stated there are few options for building with the current land,. Mr. Karr stated the property owner created the hardship. Mr. Parkhill stated the building could be reconfigured but it will cause a hardship to the church providing a small facility,. Mr, Rodney Pierson, design committee member, stated the area has tremendous growth. He stated there are 300.350 children. in Bible school. He stated some growing room has been factored into petitioner's design. He stated without the additional room, the church growth will be stifled which will create a hardship. Mr.. Jones asked if they had considered totally flipping the building and playground since the playground area is more flexible. Mr. Parkhill stated this would close some of the windows and exits.. He stated it would compromise the security for the children since it would expose the play area. He stated the daycare flows better with the current design since it keeps everyone on the first floor, Mr. Jones asked if VDOT has had any comments about the design. Mr, Parkhill stated he has not taken this exact plan to VDOT. He stated Kingsman Road may close per VDOT. Mr. Karr questioned the likelihood of this happening. Mr. Karr stated the hardship was not imposed by the zoning ordinance„ Mr. Parkhill stated the church is a community asset which the variance will enhance. Mr. Wright stated he understands the intentions of the designs but it has not been shown why changing the plan will be detrimental to the church, Mr. Parld -ill stated he could build a smaller building but he will struggle with the plan. Mr. Wright stated petitioner has not shown exceptional conditions, topographical conditions, and a variance would not alleviate an unnecessary hardship approaching confiscation of property. Also, denying this request would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict use of the property, Mr. Wright moved to deny the requested variance based on the findings above Mr.. Karr seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Wright, Karr, .tones NAYS: McNeil ABSENT: Thomas 5 4. Variance requested by Craighead & Associates of Section 30- 54- 3(B)3.a of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear yard building setback from 15 feet to 2 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct a new convenience store located at 8040 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District. No one spoke for the petitioner. Mr. Kim Buchanan frorn Greenville, Tennessee, spoke against the variance, He and his mother own adjacent property, He stated the petitioner has no evidence of hardship. He stated in the past they offered the petitioner a land swap which was refused. He stated the new structure would interlope on their property. He stated he felt the new building would create a fire hazard for his property since there would not be enough room for a firewall. He stated aesthetically it will be difficult to maintain. Mr. Darr made note there was no one available to show options of how building is to be relocated. Mr.. Karr moved to deny the requested variance noting that the property does not have exceptional shape, size, narrowness or shallowness or topography and that no extraordinary condition affects this property. He stated that denying this request would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict use of the site nor would granting a variance alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation. Mr. Wright seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Wright, McNeil, Karr, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: Thomas Variance requested by Robert L. and Sylvia B. Monahan of Section 30 -41 -3 (B)3.a of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear yard building setback from 25 feet to 23 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct an addition onto the principal structure located at 4306 Garstview Circle, Windsor Hill Magisterial District. Mary Mauck, daughter of the petitioner, gave a brief history of the petition. She requested a variance to reduce the rear yard setback in order to enclose the Monahan's 10' x 15' patio. Ms. Mauck stated Mr. Monahan has health problems which disallow him from enjoying the outdoors at their home in its present state. She stated he is wheelchair bound and restricted from exposure to the sun, Ms. Mauck stated the patio would not have to be enlarged. She stated it would be constructed identically to others in the development with no variation. Mr. Jones stated he would like to add an amendment to insure the structure matches other's in the area. Ms. Mauck stated it is a requirement of the development that all structures match. Mr, Wright moved to grant the requested variance noting that the property has exceptional topography and that a strict application of the ordinance unreasonably restricts the full use of the property. Mr. Karr seconded the motion which was amended by Mr. Jones to insure that the enclosure matches other rear porch additions in Cresthill Commons. 6 AYES: Wright, McNeil, Karr, .Tones NAYS: None ABSENT: Thomas APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Karr moved to approve minutes of .tune 19, 2002. Mr. Wright and Mr, McNeil seconded the motion. COMMEN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Carter A p�proved: Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals