Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/2003 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS--MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING---MAY 21,2003 PRESENT: Mr. Eldon Karr, Chairman Mr. Carlton Wright Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Eric Thomas Mr. Timothy Beard, Secretary Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Mr. Eldon Karr called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Jones moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Wright seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1. Variance requested by Lorraine B. Kinsey, of Section 30-41-3(B)(2)b of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct a carport located at 2820 Embassy Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Lorraine B. Kinsey of 2820 Embassy Drive gave a brief history of the carport and the property. She stated a carport had originally been installed by Leonard Aluminum Utility Building in 2000 in order to park her deceased husband's vehicle in a covered area. She stated at that time she had no knowledge of the setback requirement. She stated she was notified by Roanoke County the carport was in violation and would need to be removed. She stated Leonard removed the structure from her property without her knowledge. She stated she was not home when it was removed. She stated she would like the carport to be installed in the same location. Mr. Wright asked Ms. Kinsey to clarify if she was aware Leonard was going to remove the carport. Ms. Kinsey stated she had contacted the company but she was not informed of the exact time they were I going to disassemble the structure. Mr. Jones made the motion to deny the variance due to lack of hardship. I The motion was seconded by Mr. Wright with the following vote: AYES: Jones, Wright, Karr,Thomas NAYS: McNeil ABSENT: None f f 1 r� �r 2. Variance requested by Walter A. Bohon 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 13.2 feet and from 15 feet to 13.3 feet respectively. The purpose of this request is to construct a single family dwelling located at 3865 Piney Ridge Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Walter A. Bohon gave a brief history of the property. He stated in December 2002 a building permit was issued in error with R-1 zoning instead of AR zoning for the property located at 3865 Piney Ridge Drive. He stated the placement of the home was based on the R 1 side yard setbacks which require a minimum setback of 10 feet. He stated in April 2003,Mr. David Bess informed him of the fact the property is actually zoned AR which requires 15 foot minimum side yard setbacks. Mr. Bohon stated he then notified Roanoke County of the discrepancy. i i Mr. Karr clarified that although the variance was filed under Mr. Bohon's name,Roanoke County actually made the error. Mr. Wright asked the petitioner if he would have done anything differently had he known the correct zoning was AR. Mr. Bohon stated the house would have been positioned differently had they known. Mr. Bohon stated the house would not be in violation if the property was actually zoned R-1. Mr. Karr asked Mr. Bohon if he has been required to pay any fees in order to process the petition. Mr. Bohan responded the County has paid all fees including the legal ads. Mr. Wright asked what change would need to be made in order to correct the error. Mr. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, gave a brief explanation regarding how the clerical error occurred. He stated the Customer Service Representative used the zoning information displayed on the computer system without verifying the information on the zoning maps. He stated the computer zoning error was confirmed by another representative when a 2"d permit was issued. He stated the Supervisor for the Customer Service Representatives has been counseled regarding requiring staff to verify zoning information for all permits. Mr. Karr asked if the confirmation of the computer systems zoning error was made before or after Mr. Bohan reported the setback issue. Mr. Covey stated it was confirmed after Mr. Bohon reported the error to Roanoke County. Mr. Wright asked what would have happened if Mr. Bohon had not reported the error. Mr. Covey stated it would have most likely been discovered during the closing of the loan on the property. He reviewed the alternatives to seeking a variance to correct the error. He 1 stated if property line adjustment is required, it would impact many other property owners in the area. Mr. Karr asked Mr. Covey to explain what hardship is applicable to grant a variance under state law. Mr. Covey stated the third test, "That the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial deterrent to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance." Mr. Covey stated the ; integrity of the area will not be lost by granting the variance. Mr. Karr asked Mr. Covey to choose an item from the seven tests at the top of the page which would apply to this issue. Mr. Covey stated#5 applies since shifting the property lines would create additional problems for the adjoining property lines. Mr. Karr asked Mr. Covey if he had investigated the cost of moving the property lines of the adjoining properties. Mr. Covey stated normally three properly owners are required to sign in order to adjust the lines } which would cost approximately $1,200 or more. He stated more costs would be i 2 incurred due to the legal processes required in order to modify the plat, Mr. Covey noted easements on the properties may create more complications requiring additional costs. He stated if the lines were shifted it could create a'snowball effect'requiring several changes. Mr. Bohan stated#1 also applies since the property was purchased in good faith. He also noted the variance would only affect the corners of the property since the house is located in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Karr stated, "This is very disturbing to me." He stated that everyone needs to understand it is important to follow the Zoning Ordinance closely. He stated the ordinance is to protect the rights of the neighbors. He stated that in the past the BZA Secretary performed zoning reviews. He also questioned if it is appropriate for clerks to be allowed to perform zoning reviews. He questioned if clerks input the zoning information onto the computer. Mr. Covey stated the clerks placed the information into the system. Mr. Karr asked if it is appropriate to allow clerks who are relatively untrained regarding the Zoning Ordinance to input such important information. Mr. Covey stated the staff is very well trained regarding the Zoning Ordinance. He explained the Customer Service Representatives received training and attended classes conducted by Planning staff when the departments consolidated. Mr. Karr asked if staff has been instructed to refer to the zoning map. Mr. Covey stated staff has been directed to refer to the zoning map for each permit. Mr. Karr asked if this was done in this case. Mr. Covey stated apparently this was not done on this permit. Mr. Bohon noted this particular subdivision had not been loaded into the system at the time this error occurred. Mr. Bohon stated it was a human error. He stated historically he has found the Customer Service Representatives to be very efficient. Mr. McNeil asked if staff has a checklist which they are to follow. Mr. Covey stated although the procedure is sequential,there is not an actual checklist integrated into the system. Mr. McNeil suggested implementing a prompt to remind the staff member to verify the zoning on the appropriate map. He stated a checklist would prevent further errors. Mr. Karr stated staff should understand builders which have made mistakes are required to correct them. He stated the BZA does not grant variances for the convenience of those who have made mistakes. He stated granting this property owner a variance to cover a mistake made by staff would diminish the BZA's credibility. He stated we cannot have these mistakes. Mr. Wright motioned to approve the requested variance stating the owner of the property is not a party to the problem since he acquired the property in good faith,the hardship which has been imposed upon the owner is not generally shared by other property owners, the authorization of the variance due to the cul-de-sac and unusual shape of the lot would not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent property. He noted the property owner did not make the error. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES: Wright,McNeil, Thomas NAYS: Karr, Jones ABSENT: None 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McNeil moved to approve the April 16, 2003 minutes. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. COMMENTS Mr. McNeil stated that although Walter A. Bohon's variance was granted, this should not set a precedence in order for property owners to correct errors. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C-.4� Susan Carter Approved: A�--�14 Tim Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 4