The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/15/2002 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS –MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING –MAY 15, 2002 PRESENT: Mr. Richard Jones, Chairman Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Eldon Karr Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Eric Thomas Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary Mr. Richard Jones 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 Ellen H. Grubb of Sections 30-41-3(B)1.b and 30-41- 3(B)2.b of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory structure in front of the front building line and to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet, respectively. The purpose of theserequests is to permit the placement of an existing carport located at 1443 Lancer Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Ed Natt represented the Grubb petition. He stated that the petitioner’s understand the variance procedures and must present a hardship, located by a contractor. Mr. Natt gave a brief overview of the history of the carport’s construction and that Ms. Grubb was advised that she did not need a permit to place the carport on her property. He also stated that the homeowner would expect the contractor to know what would be required. Mr. Natt stated that there were three options for the Grubb’s; to take the carport down, request a variance, or move the carport to another location on the property. He then stated that moving the carport would not be feasible that the other side is too narrow, can’t put it on the easement, and it would be expensive to repair if there would be problems with the easement. He always stated that it was “not a self-imposed hardship” or an economic problem. He stated that it was a hardship due to the size, shape and configuration of the property, the house location and public easement. Mr. Thomas confirmed that from the survey the driveway was now on the public easement. Mr. Karr concurred that the building was on the easement now. Mr. Karr questioned the survey cul-de-sac radius and where the property fronts the cul-de-sac. Mr. Karr stated that when at the site visit today, he noticed that the carport as it exists, was just about six feet and it should be 7 ½ feet from the curb into the right-of-way and could possibly be built on public property. 1 Doris Harris, 1444 Lancer Drive, a neighbor across the street, stated that she didn’t understand why the County was singling out the Grubb’s carport when the neighbor on the other side of her property had added numerous additions to his house and “saws continuously”. She stated that she had called the County Police and nothing had been done. She felt the Grubb’s should be allowed to keep the carport. Mr. Wright stated that he had very serious concerns especially since this was not the first time that this type of situation has happened and then the citizen appeals to the BZA to rectify it. He stated said that he would like to take a message to the citizens and the contractors regarding building permits. Mr. Natt gave a brief history of the past permit requirements. Mr. Karr stated that the original survey shows the side yard is 11 feet8 inches and the public utility easement is 10 feet wide. He then stated that the width of carport is 12 feet 3 inches and is over the side property line. He said that the BZA should possibly not entertain the variance request due to the location of the carport onto the adjoining property owners land. Mr. Jimmy Philpott of Coverall of Salem stated that he did not consider the carport to be a permanent structure and therefore did not believe that he needed to get a permit. He also stated that if the structure needed to be moved that it would not be a problem. Mr. Jones confirmed through Mr. Philpott that it was secured in the ground by a piece of rebar driven into the ground similar to securing a tent. Mr. Wright then stated that the County does not look at the carport as a tent, but as a permanent structure. He also stated that it was the property owner’s responsibility to obtain the proper permits and that Mr. Philpott must make sure that the owner has obtained the necessary permits. He then stated that the BZA would not allow this type of activity to continue. Mr. Philpott stated that in the future, he would require that either he or the property owner would get a permit. Mr. Thomas confirmed from Mr. Philpott that there was one screw attaching the carport to the house. Mr. Karr moved to deny the motion for the requested variance because he had not seen a hardship described by the homeowner as imposed by the zoning ordinance. The hardship described by the petitioner is based on an assumption that it is every homeowner’s right to have a carport. And if the property is not largeenough, then the petitioner assumes that the BZA should grant a variance to make it happen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carlton Wright with the following vote: AYES:Jones, Wright, McNeil, Karr, Thomas NAYS:None ABSENT:None 2.Variance requested byP C Land, Inc. of Sections 30-93-13(E)3. and 30-93-14(E) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to provide for on-premises freestanding signage on a lot having less than 100 feet of frontage and to allow freestanding signage on a lot without public street frontage, respectively. The purpose of these requests is to 2 permit installation of a freestanding sign proposed at 4079 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Jack W. Huang potential owner of the property gave a brief overview of a problem with the original contract that he had with the broker. He stated that the two conditions that were originally on the contract had been reduced to one condition, and he stated that he had not noticed the change when he signed the contract. Mr. Huangsaid that if the request were approved today, he would be required by the existing contract to purchase the property. Mr. Karr stated that he understood that there were two conditions in the contract originally which were: securing financing of the loan to purchase the property and approval of this sign variance. He then stated that due to a dispute with the seller on the contract, Mr. Huang had the option to request a continuance. Mr. Huang agreed. Mr. Karr motioned to continue requested variance until the June meeting. Mr. McNeil seconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES:Jones, Wright, McNeil, Karr, Thomas NAYS:None ABSENT:None The petition is on the docket for the June BZA meeting. 3.Consideration of Proposed Amendments toBylaws of the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals was requested. Mr. McNeil asked if the BZA could add an alternate member to the board in case of the absence of one of the members. Mr. Jones stated that he agreed with Mr. McNeil, but that they needed to go through a procedure to have this resolution added to the bylaws. Mr. Joe Obenchain, Roanoke County Attorney’s office, stated that a separate resolution must be adopted requesting that the BOS consider the creation of an alternate to board. Mr. McNeil motioned to have the BOS consider the addition of an alternate member on the BZA. (Article III, A & B) Mr. Carlton Wright seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Karr motioned to accept the proposed amendments to the bylaws. . Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wright moved to approve the March 20, 2002 minutes. Mr. Karr seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. COMMENTS Mr. Beard distributed two hand-outs to the board. 3 Saunders Case Mr. Wright questioned how long the case would hang over our heads. Mr. Beard stated that it would be addressed in the near future, but that it is open -ended on time and not particular date is specified, Mr. Beard also stated that the Saunders have not come to the county attorney's office to sign the amended agreement. Johnson Case Mr. Jones questioned when Mr. Mahoney would bring back the case, Mr. Beard stated that it would likely be for the .Tune or possibly July meeting. But there is a possibility of it being pushed back further. Mr. Wright asked if this case would be heard again.. Mr, Obenchain stated that the county attorney's office would give notice for the petitioner to be at the meeting. He also stated that Mr. Mahoney would adopt a motion similar to the one stated in the letter distributed at tonight's meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7,56pm, Respectfully Submitted, W6 Tammi L Wood Approved: IJ ` �{. Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals El