Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2005 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS — MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 PRESENT: Mr. Eric Thomas, Chairman Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Eldon Karr Mr, Carlton Wright Mr. Kevin Barnes Mr. Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. John Murphy, Secretary Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Mr. Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jones moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1. The petition of Lighthouse Church of the Brethren for the request of a variance to Section 30- 32- 3(B)lb., Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, in order to reduce the setback for an accessory structure, adjacent to a right of way, in front of the building line from 99' to 28', Iocated at 7780 Willow Branch Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Elizabeth Mitchell, 1570 17` Street and Ms. Marsha Daugherty, 912 Logan Street, spoke regarding the petition. Ms. Mitchell stated they were unaware that the lighthouse had not been included in the original plan. She stated the lighthouse is a symbol of their church. She stated they hope it will draw other people to the church. Mr. Thomas stated the BZA members want the church to do well but they cannot base their decision on a monetary hardship. Mr. Wright asked if the lighthouse was on the original plan. Ms. Daugherty stated it was not on the original building plan. Mr. Karr asked if any plans had been reviewed for the lighthouse construction. Ms. Daugherty stated plans for the lighthouse were not submitted to the county. Mr. Katy reviewed the engineering and architectural design of the lighthouse, noting it will be used as an accessory structure. He compared sign structures and accessory structures, He reiterated they cannot grant the request if the hardship is financial. Mr. Jones asked if the petitioners have worked with staff to determine if other locations on the property are suitable. Ms. Daugherty stated they have tried to find other suitable locations on the property. Mr. Steve Allen, 2524 Mount Pleasant Drive, explained another location would not give the result they desire. Mr. Wright asked if they had checked with the proper authorities regarding building the lighthouse, Ms. Mitchell stated they thought it was included on the plan since it is a symbol of the church. Mr. Wright asked if the petitioners had checked with Balzer & Associates. Ms. Daugherty stated they had only checked with VDOT. Mr. Karr suggested the lighthouse be constructed as part of the building. Mr. Barnes asked if plans were submitted to VDOT. Mr. Allen stated VDOT had been contacted about the setbacks. Mr. Thomas explained the guidelines placed on the BZA members by state law. Mr. Allen stated failure to acquire a building permit for the lighthouse is his fault. He stated he thought the lighthouse was included with the original building permit. He stated there is not a formal plan for the lighthouse. He explained it would be complicated to move the structure due to topographical issues. He explained the site plan and soil issues. He stated no fraud was intended when they constructed the lighthouse. Mr. Karr discussed placing a lighthouse structure on top of the church. Mr. Allen stated the lighthouse would not be visible from the Roanoke direction if placed on top of church. He explained it is a local symbol for the community. Mr. Jones asked about the lighthouse being classified as signage. Mr. Murphy explained the Sign Ordinance regulations, He stated if the structure is to be considered a sign, it would require two variances to be compliant. Mr. Karr motioned to deny the request based on the findings that the property was acquired by the owner in good faith, none of the following special conditions exist: the property is not exceptionally narrow, shallow, or of unusual shape and size; the property does not have exceptional topographic conditions, and there is not an extraordinary situation or condition affecting this property. He stated denying this request and applying the County's zoning ordinance would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property by the owner. He stated, therefore, the granting of this requested variance does not satisfy the three tests set forth in the Virginia statute as follows: a strict application of the zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship to the property owner; such a hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; the authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. Mr, Wright seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Jones, Karr, Barnes, Wright NAYS: Thomas ABSENT: None 2. The petition of George C. Matthews for the request of a variance to Section 30-41 - 3(B)2a., Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, in order to reduce the side setback for an attached carport from 10' to 4', located at 7210 Longleaf Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. George Matthews, 7210 Longleaf Drive, spoke regarding the petition. He stated the purpose of the request is to eliminate water running into the basement of his home. He stated he did not have water in his basement until his next door neighbor constructed a garage. He provided a brief history of the damage to the basement. He stated his hardship is the topography of his property which causes the water to flow onto his property from the neighbor's property. He stated they have painted the basement walls with Dri -lock, applied tar to the foundation, installed IPI drain tile, retaining wall, and downspout to prevent leakage. He stated he has a crack in the foundation. He stated water has gone under the driveway and raised it. He stated he wants to install a two car carport to help carry water away from the house. He stated his adjoining neighbor submitted a letter indicating they do not object to the request. Mr. Thomas asked if a single garage would suffice. Mr. Matthews stated a single car carport would not turn away enough water. Mr. Karr discussed the soil type with the petitioner. Mr. Karr stated the surface water is primarily creating the problems. He noted shale does not perk well. Mr. Matthews stated the water which is coming onto his property needs to be diverted to a storm drain and away from the foundation crack. He stated mold has also been an issue. Mr. Barnes explained landscaping remedies. He suggested creating a swale to divert surface water. He stated runoff is a separate issue. Mr. Karr noted most homes in the area have the same topographical characteristics. Mr. Murphy explained regulations have changed since this neighborhood was built. Mr. Matthews noted neighbors have problems also. Mr. Karr noted that although the current problem is not the responsibility of the county, the county's drainage engineer may be able to offer some suggestions. Mr. Wright stated he was sympathetic to the problem but the problem is not unique to his property. He suggested that the petitioner contact a landscape architect to find a solution. Mr. Charles Jordan, 214 Summer Circle, Boones Mill, asked about the responsibility of the neighbor for causing water to be diverted to the petitioner's property. Mr. Thomas explained that issue is a legal matter and cannot be determined during this hearing. Mr. Barnes motioned to deny the request based on the findings that the property was acquired by the owner in good faith, none of the following special conditions exist: the property is not exceptionally narrow, shallow, or of unusual shape and size; the property does not have exceptional topographic conditions, and there is not an extraordinary situation or condition affecting this property. He stated denying this request and applying the County's zoning ordinance would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property by the owner. He stated, therefore, the granting of this requested variance does not satisfy the three tests set forth in the Virginia statute as follows: a strict application of the zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship to the property owner; such a hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; the authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. Mr. Jones seconded the motion with the following vote: AYES: Thomas, Jones, Karr, Barnes, Wright NAYS: None ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes of July 20, 2005. Mr. Wright seconded the motion which carried unanimously. COMMENTS There were none. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, - ts vc� C oo� Susan Carter Approved; John Jurphy, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 0