Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/2001 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS — MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — AUGUST 15,2001 PRESENT: Mr. Eldon Karr, Chainnan Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Eric Thomas Mr, Richard Jones Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Mr. David Holladay Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary Mr. Eldon Karr called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Mr. Jones moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Wright seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, PUBLIC HEARING PETITION Variance requested by Thomas W. and Marian M. Watkins of Section 30-41-3(B)],.a. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum front, yard setback from 30 feet to 20.5 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct a front porch located at 5845 Darby Road, flol➢ins Magisterial District, Mr. Thomas W. and Mrs. Marian M. Watkins approached the lectern. Mr. Ricky Arrington of 145 Colonial Road, Rocky Mount, brother of the contractor, represented the contractor (who due to an accident the day before, was in the hospital) also approached. It was discussed that the variance request be continued due to the contractor being out. Mr. Carlton Wright motioned to continue the requested variance. Mr. Eric Thomas seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Jones, Wright, McNeil, Karr, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None 2. Variance requested by Jane and James Oyler of Section 30-34-3(B)2.a. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to .5 feet, and structure side yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet located at 3631 Sandlewood Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. The purposes of these requests are to construct an addition on the dwelling and construct a freestanding garage, respectively. Mr. James & Mrs, Jane Oyler, 3631 Sandlewood Road described their reasoning for a request for a variance. Mr. Oyler stated that the existing house is 6 feet from the property 2 line, the lot is narrow and makes it impossible to build any other way than the proposed plan. The garage is similar, with the narrowness issue approaching the other side by 3 feet. Mr. Oyler was asked if he preferred the requests to be addressed separately or together, he stated separately. Mr. Wright asked why in the garage plan there was 2 feet between the house and the garage instead of against the house, It was stated that there would still be an encroachment of one foot over the setback, Mr. Oyler stated that it could possibly be done, but he would still need a variance for I foot, but that he could cut the size of the garage, Mr. Wright stated that he felt the garage would be workable without granting a variance, but he would need to be convinced. Mr. Oyler stated that he had an alternate plan, which includes the garage against the house, and narrowing the garage, Mr. Wright asked if a 26' extension had been considered. Mr. Jones asked if the construction could go deeper and Mr. Oyler stated that may be possible but the slope may be a problem. Mr. Karr stated that a variance would be needed either way, There was a discussion of turning the addition 90 degrees. Mr. Karr was concerned about, the accuracy of the measurements by the line. Mr. Oyler stated that if tile variance is granted for 6.5 feet he would comply with the 6.5 feet and would be willing to shorten the addition to make it fit, Mr. McNeil state that due to the roof design, the only feasible way to add the addition is as requested. The neighborhood is supportive. Mr. Thomas asked if the property had been surveyed since the submitted "FoutZ' plat. It was stated no but that Mr. Oyler was looking for the pins. Mr. Carlton Wright moved to grant the request to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to 6.5 feet, Mr. Wright also strongly suggested that the petitioner get a current survey on his property, Mr. Thomas seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES,: Wright, McNeil, Karr, Thomas, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Jones moved to deny the second request, to reduce the accessory structure yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet. Mr. Jones said there were several other options available. Mr. Wright seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Wright, McNeil, Karr, Thomas, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: None Administrative Appeal requested by Outlook Media, Inc. of 30-93-14(A)I denying the placement of an off-premise sign within a 500 foot radius of an existing off -premise sign, located at 4057 .Electric Road Cave Spring Magisterial District. The purpose of this request is to determine the applicability of the definitions of "off -premise sign" and "directional sign." Mr. Wilburn Dibling, Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore, 10 Franklin Road made a presentation. Mr. Dibling, stated that the petitioner found a site which he felt was lawful at Kentucky Fried Chicken and filed for a permit with Roanoke: County. The application was then denied by the Zoning Administrator because the proposed sign was within 500 3 feet of the existing off-premises sign which the petitioner disagrees with, Mr. Dibling complimented staff on their professionalism. He then gave background on the search for appropriate sites. Mr. Richard Kuritz, 503 E. Monroe Street, Jacksonville, FL presented background information regarding Outlook Media. He stated that he came to Roanoke County several months ago and surveyed the area for an appropriate location to place a legally permitted sign. He then negotiated with the landowner and looked for other off-prernises signs but none were found. He stated that the closest off-premises sign was at the Texas Saloon at one direction and in the other direction, in front of the Roanoke County Administration Center, He also stated that he looked for tags, permits or other paperwork on the sign for information. fie then passed out a letter to the members of the BZA and staff. Mr. Dibling then questioned the legality of the sign, since the permit cannot be produced, There was a discussion of the County Ordinance, Mr. Paul Mahoney, Roanoke County Attorney made a presentation. Mr. Mahoney stated that the arguments made are compelling and moving but to some extent it is an academic argument and that the members should look at the real world. There is ail off-premises sign in the radius of the requested sign permit site. It was stated that out of fairness the sign owner and the real estate owner should be present at the hearing to present their cases as to the validity of the sign permit. Mr. Mahoney stated that the board needs to uphold the Zoning Adminstrator's decision. He also stated that Outlook Media is advertising on the KFC property and they are presenting a case against the owners of the KFC and Sleep Inn sign simultaneously — and then asked if this had been discussed. It was detennined that the property owner/sign owner could be requested to attend the hearing and that a notification to the owner should be issued, Mr. McNeil asked Mr, Dibling if the property owner had been contacted, Mr. Kuritz stated that the realtor was called today to determine the owner and the call was not returned. Mr. Thomas stated that Jack Winston owned the property. Mr. Karr stated that tile person who installed the sign was not known. Mr. Kuritz stated that he had visited the Sleep Inn today. Mr. Karr stated that the request all centered around "illegal" sign — and that it can't be determined as a directional sign. The request hinges on a resolution of that sign and it wouldn't be appropriate to rule against Zoning, Administrator's interpretation — more information is needed on the background of the sign. Mr. Wright stated that he has no desire to overturn the Zoning Administrator" s interpretation but that we need to pursue who the sign belongs to. He also stated that the ZA had determined the ordinance correctly, Mr. Karr stated that the applicant was not in a position to police the county to get rid of the sign and that as the request stands, he can't make a decision either way. Mr. Kurit�z re-stated the question of calling the sign "off-premises" if it doesn't meet tile ordinance standards. lie wanted to know why if there is no application, it can't be taken down. Mr. Wright moved to continue the administrative appeal to the September meeting. Mr. Jones seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Wright, McNeil, Karr, Thomas, Jones L, NAYS: None ABSENT- None Mr. Karr questioned the role of the County and the role of the applicant. Mr. McNeil stated that it behooves the county with justification as to by the determination is made. We need proof to say it is so. Mr. Karr stated that the County must declare to the existing property owner that the sign is not a sign. Mr. Beard stated that the definitions for "off-premises" and directional are in the staff report. Mr. Karr stated that the question is whether the sign is legal — either way , if not how does the Zoning Administrator deal with that if the sign is illegal, Mr. Mahoney discussed several assumption scenarios and asked why KFC cannot remove the small sign to allow Outlook Media to put up their sign, Mr. McNeil stated that it is the County obligation to address the issues but there is only some infon available. Mr. Karr stated that if the BZA ruled in favor of the Zoning Administrator - in effect are we offering credibility to sign calling it an off-premises sign? If yes, therefore the is not enough information available. Mr. Mahoney stated that past experience shows that illegal uses for 30-50 years longevity — courts, will not disturb that use. Mr. Dibling stated that if the sign is illegal, then they can go on with Outlook Media, Enc.'s request, Mr. Wright moved to continue the administrative appeal to the September meeting. Mr. McNeil seconded the motion, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jones moved to approve minutes of July 18,,2001 Mr. McNeil seconded the motion. Kno Mr. Wright stated his concern with the Darby Road request. Mr. Mahoney referred to the Bridlewood Subdivision issue: several years ago. Mr. McNeil stated his concern with the idea that people may begin to do as they please with construction. Mr. Karr said that there were clear violations but nothing was done. He also stated concerns regarding the Outlook Media appeal. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at g.3 pm. Respectfully Submitted, FeM112AWWWR MMEM Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zon ing Appeals