Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/17/2015 - MinutesBZA Members Present Mr. Carlton Wright, Chairman Mr. Barry Beckner Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Eldon Karr BZA Members Absent: Mr. Eric Thomas Staff Present: Mr. John Murphy, Secretary Ms. Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. Brian Hughes Ms. Susan McCoy, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Mr. Wright called the meeting to order at 7.00 p.m. FI -11 a a tISIT/11 W412-11TC] 4 ti- Mr. ,I Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Karr seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Karr made a motion to approve the January 20, 2015, minutes. Mr. Beckner seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. The petition of Sherri Hill for variances to Section 30-85-18( C )l of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum 100' setback for outdoor runs, training areas and pens from any property line associated with a proposed commercial kennel. The purpose of this request allow for a fenced area no closer than 40' adjacent to the northern property line, no closer than 5' adjacent to the eastern property line and no closer than 5' to the southern property line. The property is located at 4240 Old Cave Spring Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Ms. Sherri Hill, 6015 Poage Valley Road, stated the kennel will be primarily a "doggie daycare" with dogs being inside the kennel most of the time. She discussed proposed fencing, noting all dogs will be inside the kennel after 10:00 p.m. She discussed installation of kennel silencers inside and outside the building to control barking. She stated that she has spoken with the nearby neighbors, noting they are agreeable with the proposed use. Mr. Karr inquired about the number of dogs which would be in the kennel. Ms. Hill stated up to thirty dogs would be in the building, noting dogs would undergo an evaluation to BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 17, 2015 determine if they are social and non-aggressive. Mr. Karr inquired about required records. She stated health records for each dog would be required. Mr. Beckner inquired about the silencers. Ms. Hill stated silencers work within 2,500 square feet, noting the ultrasonic sound distracts the dogs. She stated ultrasonic sound and water spray are most effective in kennels. Mr. Karr discussed the role of the Board of Zoning Appeals, inquiring about what hardship is evident if the Zoning Ordinance is strictly applied to this property. Ms. Hill stated without the variance there will be a deficit for the area, noting there is a need for this type of service in this vicinity. She stated her hardship is not providing a needed service to the community. Mr. Murphy and the Members discussed zoning designations which allow this type of use. Mr. Wright opened the public hearing for public comment. Dr. Daniel Porter, owner of the property, stated he is in support of the kennel. He discussed the population density, noting people live down in the valley. He described the property frontage and setbacks, noting it would be difficult to meet the restrictions in the more dense areas where there is a need for this type of facility. He stated it is difficult to afford to develop this type of use with the current standards. He stated wildlife passes through this area. He stated the County needs to look at requirements and need of the area. He stated the current requirements make this use expensive to develop. Mr. Karr stated he appreciates Dr. Porter's perspective. He explained the role of the Board of Zoning Appeals. With no other citizens requesting to speak, Mr. Wright closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Jones made a motion to deny the variance request based on the following findings: the property is not exceptionally narrow, shallow or of an unusual shape or size; the property does not have exceptional topographic conditions; and there is not an extraordinary situation or condition affecting this property. 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. Therefore, the granting of this request variance does not satisfy the three tests set forth in the Virginia statute as follows: a strict application of the zoning ordinance would affect the use of the property, such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, and the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. Mr. Beckner seconded the motion which passed with the following vote: AYES: Beckner, Jones, Karr, Wright NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None Page 2 of 3 BOAR© OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 17, 2015 COMMENTS Mr. Murphy discussed changes regarding State Code, noting more detailed information will be provided at the Board of Zoning Appeals next meeting. There being no further business, Mr. Wright adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Susan McCoy, Recording Se e ary Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals C'rz' J- John urphy, Secretary Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 3