Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/2002 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS — MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — FEBRUARY 20, 2002 PRESENT: Mr. Richard .Tones, Chairman Mr, Eric Thomas Mr, Carlton Wright Mr, Timothy Beard, Secretary Ms. Tarrrmi Wood, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Mr, Rodney McNeil Mr. Eldon Karr Mr, Richard .Tones called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Wright moved to approve the agenda., The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION Reconsideration of a variance requested by Mr, Alfred & Mrs. Patsy Saunders, of Sections 30- 32-3(B)1 a and 3032- 3(B)3..a, of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 3535 feet and reduce the rear yard setback from 35 feet to 2.6 feet respectively, The purpose of these requests is to permit the placement of an existing single- family dwelling, located at 3530 Simsmore Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District (Continued from December 19, 2001 and January 15, 2002.) Mr. Jones gave a brief history of the BZA meetings. Mr. Alfred Saunders, 3530 Simsmore Avenue stated that he appreciated the BZA reconsidering his petition. He also stated that he was requesting the variance due to his wife's health and was unaware of the setbacks. Ms. Lynn Davis, 1674 Sigmon Road, a board member of the friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP), works at VT. The legality of the January meeting was questioned. Ms, Davis had concerns about improper subject matter being recorded, She stated that the notes should be erased from the records and all information addressed in the January meeting should be revisited tonight due to the potential for the County being sued due to illegality of the meeting. Her concerns included violation of the Master Plan, blatant violation of the adjoining neighbor, the BRP, (which has a right to be afforded dignity and fairness) and the Economic Development issues of the BRP as an international res0urce, Mr,. Ed Clark, Blue Ridge Parkway, Supervisor Park Ranger, 2551 Mountain View Road, a BRP representative, stated that the variance request should be denied to show respect for the integrity of the BRP boundary. Mr. Jones confirmed that due to the location of where the house sits on the property — it is not normally visible from the Parkway. However, there is a horse trail where the house is very visible. Mr. Jones then asked if additional tree planting would obstruct the view of the house. Mr. Clark stated that the area is well treed now, and that there is not a large buffer area to plant more trees. The Jagged property line was discussed. Mr. Bill Richardson, Roanoke County Code Enforcement Officer, questioned the impact the approval of a variance would allow. He asked if the deck would be considered included in the variance. Mr. Jones stated that the deck would be covered by the variance. Ms.. Lisa Mitchell, daughter of the Saunders, stated that they had addressed the request with the trail horse riders and they had no problem with the house. She also stated that if the house were allowed to stay on the property site, it would be up to Roanoke County standards. Ms. Lynn Davis questioned what was the point o #'having a Master Plan and permits and rules if they are not adhered to by the public. She stated they needed to be enforced. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, if the additions were attached tonight to the variance can the county assure without any doubt that they would be adhered to: He stated the possibility of granting the variance to allow the home to stay located as is , but only be occupied by the Mr. and Mrs. Saunders. He also stated that it could not be sold and moved into by anyone else. He also expressed concern about not wanting the condition to "slip by," Mr. Mahoney stated that the County's ability to enforce problem was age old. He stated that there was no way to monitor who owns and lives in the house. This information is not recorded with deeds in the clerk's office, But he stated that would be the only way he would suggest to do this. Mr. Jones questioned if the BZA can require that recordation be placed on the deed as a condition and Mr. Mahoney stated that he was not sure Mr. Jones also questioned if a deed restriction was feasible. Mr. Mahoney stated that it could not be guaranteed to be taken care of'by the deed, if no title exam would be done. Mr. Wright stated that the BZA was in place to help the citizens with law issues. Mr. Mahoney made several references to the state code,. Ms. Lynn Davis suggested that a conservation easement be considered and that Mr. Roger Holnback was the point of contact. She mentioned the benefits of this option Mr. Mahoney stated that he did not know enough about conservation casements, He also stated that the BZA could not impose this condition on the Saunders, but that the county would assist in aiding the Saunders with these issues. Mr. Wright reiterated his concern for a guarantee that the conditions would be adhered to and withheld. Mr. Glenn Mitchell, son -in -law of the Saunders, stated that Mr, and Mrs. Saunders will write up a "paper" and put in the deed that the home will be removed when both Alfred and Patsy Saunders move or die. Mr. Tones asked Mr. Mahoney if the County would be comfortable with that suggestion Mr. Mahoney said that the Attorney's office would work with Mr. Saunders to grant a variance with conditions. Mr. Saunders would need to prepare the document to provide the guarantee. Mr. Wright stated that the intent of the BZA was for the Saunders to occupy the home, however if they sell, the home would be moved to be in accordance with the current zoning. Mr. Ed Clark stated that he could appreciate the BZA's position. He stated that the problem lies with the Saunders — that if they had gotten the survey, and applied for the permits, etc. as required, these problems would have come to light prior to this time. Mr.. Clark then gave a brief history of other cases. He expressed concerns that this case would haunt the Blue Ridge Parkway 20 -30 years down the road and that enforcement would be difficult in the future, Mr. Wright stated that the letter which the BZA had received copies of in December had erroneous information in it and the person who wrote the letter should have attended the 2 meeting, The letter stated that the house was not on the site, only the footers when in fact the dwelling was already on site. Mr, .Jones stated that the information was subsequently corrected, Mr. Wright motioned to approve the requested variance with the following conditions: • Provided the Saunders' work. a written agreement out with the County Attorney: • The variance be granted for' as long as the Saunders live in the mobile home. At such a time that they move out, the mobile home would no longer be allowed to remain in a non - conforming status. • A bond must be obtained to assure that this agreement is legally binding.. • The Saunders must obtain the proper building permits as addressed by Mr, Bill Richardson, Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, AYES: Thomas, Jones, Wright NAYS: None ABSENT: McNeil, Darr Mr. Jones requested a draft copy of Mr. Mahoney's agreement when it has been prepared. The bond will equal the amount necessary to remove the house from the property.. The bond will legally tie the property to the home. The home may have to be put up as collateral. It was stated Mr. and Mrs. Saunders need to contact Mr. Mahoney's office as soon as possible, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Thomas moved to approve minutes of .January 16, 2002, Mr. Wright seconded the motion. COMMENTS Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Bylaws Mr, Mahoney stated that the BOS has different obligations than the BZA and the does not need to adopt a new Bylaw. Mr, Beard and Mr, Mahoney worked together on the amendment.. The BOS added a protective step which includes another round of legal and adjoiner notices when a reconsideration is done. Mr. Mahoney stated that it provides an extra level of public notice.. Mr. Jones stated that the BZA Bylaws were mirroring this. He also suggested that the motion to approve the Bylaws be delayed until the other two members are in attendance at the next BZA meeting, Mr. Beard stated that there was one revision in the spring of 1999, In the past, there has been a delay of one month until the bylaw amendment is put into effect. Mr. Wright made a motion to table the consideration of the Bylaw amendment until the next BZA meeting. Mr,. Thomas seconded the motion. AYES: Thomas, .Tones, Wright NAYS: None ABSENT: McNeil, Karr Johnson Boat Case Mr, Wright asked Mr. Mahoney how he felt the judge would decide in the hearing or if he would side with the BZA. Mr. Mahoney stated that he was not comfortable to answer but that he was optimistic about the decision. He had originally planned to come to the meeting tonight with a compromise, but Mr. Johnson was unwilling to meet the county `/z way. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:51pm. Respectfully Submitted, Tarni L. Wood Approved: Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 4