Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2001 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS –MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING –DECEMBER 19, 2001 PRESENT: Mr. Eldon Karr, Chairman Mr. Eric Thomas Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary ABSENT: None Mr. Eldon Karr called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jyke Jones moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carlton Wright, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1. A Variance requested by BSW International, of Section 30-93-13(E)2. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to increase allowable signage on the site from 500 square feet to 1,365.42 square feet. The purpose of this request is to install signage at aproposed WalMart facility located southwest of the intersection of U.S. 221/460 and Highway 220 . Alternate, Hollins Magisterial District rd Mr. Rob Morris, representative of BSW, One West 3Street; Tulsa, OK; 74112 stated that he was requesting the variance to install signage which goes beyond the maximum signage of the ordinance. Mr. Karr asked for Mr. Morris to explain why the ordinance requirement places a hardship on Walmart. He stated that the site was unique, large and would have many businesses located within the Walmart building which need signage. Mr. Archer Livengood, 5269 Crumpacker Drive stated that he was making a presentation on behalf of the Bonsack Coalition and was protesting the request. He stated that the additional signage was a visual hardship to the residences and that the homes were next to a lovely area, with trees and wildlife, however now there was a “huge scar” on the site. He stated that the coalition was now negotiating with Walmart for a berm with includes an eight-foot privacy fence to cut down on the “commercial intrusion” of noise and light pollution. He gave a brief overview of the last community meeting. Mr. Livengood requested that the BZA table the request and do not vote on it until the community has a commitment from Walmart regarding the visual relief request. He also stated that if Walmart would agree to the berm, the coalition would withdraw their request. Don Griffith, 4643 Huntridge Road, asked where the signage would be located. It was stated that therewould be a pylon sign (160 square feet) and approximately 20 additional signs on the building. Mr. McNeil stated that he understood and sympathized with the citizens, but that the purpose of the BZA was not to gain leverage against the BSW company. 1 Ms. Sheila Gasperson, 199 Hemphill Knob Road, read the letter from the United States Department of the Interior dated December 18, 2001 and signed by Mr. Daniel W. Brown. Mr. McNeil asked why the USDI felt the signage was more intrusive than the building itself. She stated that the added impact of drawing attention to the building. Mr. Morris stated that there was only two signs illuminated one on the building and one on pylon sign. Mr. Jyke Jones motioned to deny the requested variance because the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship and the business would not be unreasonably impacted. Mr. Carlton Wright seconded the motion. AYES:McNeil, Thomas, Wright, Jones, Karr NAYS:none ABSENT:none 2. A Variance requested by Mr. Alfred & Mrs. Patsy Saunders, of Sections 30-32-3(B)1.a and 30-32-3(B)3.a. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 35.35 feet and reduce the rear yard setback from 35 feet to 2.6 feet respectively, located at 3530 Simsmore Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. The purpose of these requests is to permit the placement of an existing single-family . dwelling Mr. Alfred E. Saunders, 3530 Simsmore Avenue stated that the doublewide is in the same area as a previous mobile home. He stated that due to his wife’s deteriorating physical condition, the mobile home was custom-made with special doors, pumps, whirlpools and tilt beds. Mr. Saunders stated that he did not realize or know that there was a law against putting the new mobile home on thesame site without a permit. Mr. Wright asked if there was a double wide on the site originally and if he knew the regulations when he contacted the county. Mr. Saunders stated that he came in person to the RCAC assessment office to get the correct assessment for taxes on a double wide mobile home. Mr. Karr questioned who built the foundation. Mr. Saunders stated that the footer was built by a Lynchburg contractor and the brick foundation was done by a company in Gretna. He stated that he did his own sewer and electrical hook-ups to the new home and that none of the builders informed him that permits were necessary. Mr. Karr asked if anyone made any comments, it was stated no. Mr. Saunders stated the he had moved into the home before anyone notified him of any violation. Mr. Wright asked when the double wide was set on a foundation. It was stated 3 months ago. Mr. Wright stated that when the Parkway notified the petitioner on September 26, the mobile home was not on the foundation. The petitioner’s stated that they had never spoken or heard from the Parkway on that date and if they had, he would not have placed the home on the foundation. Mr. Wright asked if the representative was lying to the county. It was stated no. Mrs. Saunders stated that two park rangers came to the house and asked her to step outside and notified her that the trailer was on Parkway property. She was informed that the survey would be done. She then gave a brief history of the survey information. She stated that the Parkway made no more contact after this visit and that the only contact they had regarding the setback was with the county staff. Mr. Wright tried to verify if the trailer was a single or doublewide. It was stated that the original trailer was a 14’ x 70’ singlewide and then a 40’ doublewide was placed on the site. The current trailer is a doublewide. Mr. Karr asked if the second trailer was placed on the site without a permit, 2 it was stated yes. Mr. McNeil asked if the county had inspected the electrical hookups and it was stated yes. Mr. Wright stated that the county would not inspect without a building permit being issued. Mr. Jones questioned if other surveys had been done in the past. Mr. Thomas verified that the same septic and well were being used. Mr. Wright stated that he was very troubled with the presentation. Mr. McNeil asked when the house was set on the foundation and stated that that information was needed. Mr. Karr confirmed that the Saunder’s stayed with their daughter when the new mobile home was being built. Mr. Thomas questioned if the brick underpinning was installed when the ranger came to the property, it was stated yes. Mr. Glen Mitchell, 100 Staunton River Drive, stated that the original home was 14’ x 70’. He stated that the end was marked off 3-4 feet from the parkway line. The 40 foot home was installed and was assessed. The new 70’ went in the same location of the original approved 14’ x 70’ site, but permits were not obtained. Mr. Thomas verified that there was a permanent foundation on the 40-foot home. Lisa Mitchell, daughter of petitioners, stated that the 40’ doublewide was too small and she had insisted that they get a custom home due to the history of their medical problems. Ms. Sheila Gasperson, 199 Hemphill, USDI representative, stated the history again. She also stated that there was debris deposited on the Blue Ridge Parkway land behind the Saunder’s property. She requested that the variance be denied due to the cost of the survey to prove that there was a 2’6” encroachment on one corner of the home. It was also stated that there was an increasingly adverse use of public land and without a setback requirement being enforced, there is added potential for encroachment in the future. Mr. McNeil questioned again if the house was on the site on September 26. The petitioner or Ms. Gasperson were unable to certify. Mr. Karr stated that he was sympathetic to the Blue Ridge Parkway’s concern. He stated that the native population in the area is part of what the Blue Ridge Parkway represented in the past, and we cannot run roughshod over them, and need to be careful about how the case is presented. Mr. Wright stated that he was tremendously disturbed about the case. He stated that the BZA tries to be sensitive to the petitioners, but that there are reasons for the rules and regulations and that the ordinances apply to everyone. He stated that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation the law. He was concerned about what message is sent to the county if citizens can do whatever they want and then go to the BZA to appeal. Mr. Karr asked Ms. Gasperson if there had been any communication between the Saunders and the Blue Ridge Parkway –it was stated that the only communication was between the solicitor and the Saunders’. Mr. McNeil asked if the county had told the Saunders if they have to move the house. Mr. Beard presented the violation letter to the BZA. Mr. Karr asked if the Saunders had gotten the required permit from the county as stated in the violation letter.Mr. Saunders stated the Roanoke County would not issue the permit due to the setback and then was referred to Mr. Beard for variance proceedings to begin. Mr. Wright stated that due to the message being sent to the citizens and that the rules need to be abided by, that he cannot in good conscience vote for the variance. Mr. McNeil stated that probably 50% of the Citizens were unaware of the rules and ordinances for the county. Mr. Wright stated that there were many contradictions and that this case was a mess of unequal proportions. Mr. Thomas verified that this was the third dwelling on the property and that it was never mentioned by the county prior to this time. Mr. Beard stated that the Zoning Ordinance had been revised and changed since the Saunders first moved on the site in 1972. Ms. Debbie Watson, 3538 Simsmore Avenue, stated that it was her property that the rangers originally had a concern about. Mr. McNeil stated that the residents have to 3 abide by the Roanoke County rules. He stated that hecould not ask the residents to move and that they were shielded by the Blue Ridge Parkway. He stated that there needs to be an agreement to protect the citizens and abide by the rules. Mr. Rodney McNeil motioned to grant the requested variance. Mr. Eric Thomas seconded the motion. AYES:McNeil, Thomas NAYS:Wright, Jones, Karr ABSENT:None The petition was therefore denied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Carlton Wright moved to approve minutes of October 17, 2001. Mr. Rodney McNeil seconded the motion. COMMENTS There were no comments There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15pm. Respectfully Submitted, Tammi L. Wood Approved: Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 4