Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/2018 - Public Hearing and WorksessionMINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE TOWN OF VINTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2018, AT 6 P.M. AND 7 P.M., IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE VINTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 311 SOUTH POLLARD STREET. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mick Michelsen, Vice Chairman Amanda Grose Debra Hagins Allen Kasey STAFF PRESENT: Anita McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director M. Roxy Brown, Code Compliance Officer Julie S. Tucei, Planning and Zoning Coordinator OTHERS PRESENT: Christopher and Erin Berry, 826 Morrison Ave., Vinton, Petitioners Sarah Burton, 5918 Bighorn Dr., Roanoke, Petitioners’ Representative Edward and Anna Underwood, 823 Ruddell Rd., Vinton Tonya Beach, 828 Morrison Ave., Vinton AGENDA WORK SESSION I. Call to Order—Roll Call II. Review of Annual Reports from 2015, 2016, 2017 III. Briefing on the petition of Christopher and Erin Berry, for a variance of Article IV, Division 2, Sec. 4-9 (b) and (c), Yard requirements, of the Vinton Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the request is to ask for a 7.7 feet variance from the required 25 feet rear yard setback requirement and a 0.7 foot variance from the required 6.5 feet side yard setback for a deck attached to the rear of a single family residence. The property is located at 826 Morrison Avenue, Tax Map Number 61.09-06-12, zoned R-1 Residential District. IV. Adjournment of Work Session PUBLIC HEARING I. Call to Order—Roll Call II. Election of Officers: 1. Chair 2. Vice-Chair 3. Secretary 4. Recording Secretary III. Approval of Minutes 1. November 9, 2015, Public Hearing IV. Public Hearing to receive comments concerning: The petition of Christopher and Erin Berry, for a variance of Article IV, Division 2, Sec. 4-9 (b) and (c), Yard requirements, of the Vinton Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the request is to ask for a 7.7 feet variance from the required 25 feet rear yard setback requirement and a 0.7 foot variance from the required 6.5 feet side yard setback for a deck attached to the rear of a single family residence. The property is located at 826 Morrison Avenue, Tax Map Number 61.09-06-12, zoned R-1 Residential District. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 PAGE 2 a. Chairman opens public hearing • Report from staff • Receive petitioner’s comments • Receive public comments • Board members discussion and questions b. Chairman closes public hearing c. Board of Zoning Appeals takes action on the variance request V. Other Business VI. Adjournment of Work Session The work session was called to order at 6 p.m. by Vice Chairman Michelsen. Roll call was called, and all members were present. Staff mentioned to the Board that the annual reports for 2015, 2016, and 2017 were included in the packets for their information and reference. Ms. McMillan reminded the members that they would need to hold election of officers during the public hearing and to be thinking about who they would like to nominate for Chairman and Vice Chairman. Ms. McMillan also reminded them that the nomination for Secretary should be her, and for Recording Secretary would be Ms. Tucei. It is general practice that both positions are filled by personnel from the Planning and Zoning Department. The Board also briefly discussed the request for variance that would be heard during the public hearing and reviewed the packet of information that was sent out prior to the meeting. With there being nothing further to discuss, the work session was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. in order to prepare for the public hearing at 7 p.m. The public hearing was called to order at 7 p.m. by Vice Chairman Michelsen. Roll call was called, and all members were present. The first item on the agenda was the election of officers. For the Chairman position, Ms. Grose made a motion to nominate Mr. Kasey. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hagins. A roll call vote was taken, and all members voted in favor of the motion. For the Vice Chairman position, Ms. Hagins made a motion to nominate Mr. Michelsen. The motion was seconded by Ms. Grose. A roll call vote was taken, and all members voted in favor of the motion. Next, Ms. Grose made a motion to nominate Ms. McMillan for Secretary, and Ms. Tucei for Recording Secretary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kasey. A roll call vote was taken, and all members voted in favor of the motion. Once the elections were finished, Vice Chairman Michelsen and Chairman Kasey switched seats on the dais. The next item on the agenda was the approval of minutes from November 9, 2015. Mr. Hagins made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted, and Ms. Grose seconded it. A roll call vote was taken, and all members voted in favor of the motion to accept the minutes as submitted. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 PAGE 3 Chairman Kasey introduced the variance request to be heard from Christopher and Erin Berry. The request is for a variance of Article IV, Division 2, Sec. 4-9 (b) and (c), Yard requirements, of the Vinton Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the request is to ask for a 7.7 feet variance from the required 25 feet rear yard setback requirement and a 0.7 foot variance from the required 6.5 feet side yard setback for a deck attached to the rear of a single family residence. The property is located at 826 Morrison Avenue, Tax Map Number 61.09-06-12, and is zoned R-1 Residential District. Chairman Kasey opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and asked for the report from staff. Ms. McMillan read portions of the staff report aloud. A copy of the full staff report will be made a part of the permanent record of this meeting. Ms. McMillan mentioned that the request for variance was advertised in The Vinton Messenger newspaper for two consecutive weeks and also on RVTV-3. Letters of notification for the meeting were also sent to adjoining and surrounding property owners (see list and map in the meeting packet). Additionally, the Petitioner’s representative, Ms. Burton, posted the Notice of Hearing sign in the front yard at 826 Morrison Avenue and provided the Planning and Zoning Department with a photo of the posted sign. Ms. McMillan said that the petitioners were provided with a copy of the staff report and supporting materials prior to the meeting tonight. Ms. McMillan stated that the Planning and Zoning Department received one phone call regarding the variance request. A typed copy of the comment received by phone will be made a part of the permanent record. Ms. McMillan said that the phone call was received today, February 27, 2018, at 9:26 a.m. She said the call was from Ms. Ginger Faw, on behalf of herself and her husband, of 821 Ruddell Road, Vinton. Ms. Faw stated that she will be unable to attend the BZA meeting due to having a close relative in the hospital and hospital visiting hours conflicting with the BZA meeting time. Her statement is, “I don’t think they should be allowed to build so close to the property lines. If they are allowed to proceed with building so close to the property lines, other people may try to do the same thing. I feel that it is too close to the property lines and should not be allowed.” Ms. Faw was informed by staff that her statement, name and address would be read into the record during the meeting. Next, Vice Chairman Kasey asked for the petitioner’s comments regarding the variance request. Ms. Sarah Burton, 5918 Bighorn Drive, Roanoke, 24018, came forward and stated that she is working with Chris and Erin Berry on the screened porch job. She stated that she took over the paperwork because the Berrys’ jobs keep them very busy. She mentioned that they have a letter from the Berrys’ Realtor, Eric Thomas stating that the reason they are unable to sell their home is due to the unusable backyard. She said that Ms. Berry has lived in Vinton all her life. She stated that the Berrys have tried to sell their home for awhile, but cannot because of the backyard being unusable. She mentioned that, as far as the addition that had been added onto the home several years ago, permits were obtained for the work by a contractor. She stated that the Berrys made the assumption that the deck that is being screened-in would not be an issue because it was already there and was approved during the renovation several years ago. Ms. Burton said that once they began work, a building inspector met with them and said they could not continue screening in the deck because it required permits. Ms. Burton stated that at this point, the roofline is already in place. She said the Berrys are trying to make the backyard useable and increase the value of their home. Ms. Burton stated that they did not know that the deck was not approved. She mentioned the letter once again BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 PAGE 4 from the Berrys’ Realtor which states that the unusable backyard is what kept the house from selling. Ms. Burton stated that they kept the roofline of the screened porch low so as to not affect the view of the neighbors behind them. Ms. Burton had some photos of the deck on her cell phone and showed them to the BZA members. Ms. Burton mentioned that they won’t even need a variance on the side, only the rear yard setback variance would be necessary because they can scale back the other portion of the uncovered deck they proposed. Ms. Berry confirmed that. Ms. Burton said they are using brown in color, all-weather materials that will not degrade over time. She said again that they were not aware the original deck was not approved, and all the Berrys want to do is to increase living space and to be able to enjoy their yard. She mentioned that they have worked hard to make it fit into the neighborhood, and it would be a shame to tear it down. Chairman Kasey asked if the addition was existing when they bought it. Ms. Berry said that they had expanded the master bedroom and added an extra room. She stated that the deck passed building code at that time. Ms. McMillan said that the building permit that was obtained for the work did not include the deck on the permit application or on the site drawing. She said that the deck was not supposed to be built there, and the fact that the inspector looked at it and approved it does not matter since it was not included on the permit paperwork according to the Town Attorney. Ms. McMillan said the Town does allow a deck to be located within two feet of a property line as long as it is not more than 30 inches in total height. Ms. Berry indicated that it is not that tall of a deck. Ms. Tucei mentioned that if the deck has railings around it, railings do count towards the total height. Ms. Burton stated that the homeowners had no idea that the deck was not approved on the previous permit—they had no knowledge of it. She said they would just like to increase their living space so they can stay in their home. Next to speak was Ms. Anna Underwood, of 823 Ruddell Road. She said she now has a privacy fence in her rear yard between her home and the Berrys’. She stated that they had their property surveyed and staked prior to putting up the fence and that one of the stakes was pulled up. She said that she had to put up the privacy fence in order to block out being able to see into the Berrys’ house all the way through to Morrison Avenue. Ms. Burton mentioned that her fence was just put up, and the Berrys’ addition has been up for awhile. Ms. Berry mentioned that they can remove the chain link fence between the privacy fence and their property now since Ms. Underwood has the privacy fence. The next citizen to address the Board was Ms. Tonya Beach, of 828 Morrison Avenue. She stated that she has lived in Vinton for 55 years and that her father was Charles Barton who used to work for the Vinton Police Department. She said the addition to the Berrys’ home is professionally done. She stated that she looks at it from her deck and does not see anything wrong with it. She mentioned that she also has to look at Ms. Underwood’s privacy fence now, too. She said that the addition of the roof over the deck is no higher than the house roof. Again she stated that she sees no issue with it. She said the Berrys are excellent neighbors and keep their house nice. She would hate to see them move because they are good neighbors and said she might have to move as well, if they move. Ms. Berry addressed the Board again and said that their backyard is steep and not useable. She provided the hardcopy of the letter for the record from her realtor that Ms. Burton mentioned stating that the unusable backyard is the reason the house would not sell. Ms. Burton asked for Ms. McMillan to read aloud the conditions required to approve a variance. Ms. McMillan began reading the required findings section from the zoning ordinance, but Ms. Burton said that was not the wording that she was referring to. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 PAGE 5 Ms. McMillan asked if she was referring to the unreasonable restriction section from the staff report and read that aloud, “A variance shall be granted if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would: • unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance; and • the property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance; • the granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area; • the condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; • the granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification of the property; and • the relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process that is authorized in the ordinance or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance at the time of the filing of the variance application.” Ms. Burton said the hardship is that the Berrys cannot use their rear yard or even sell their home because of it. Chairman Kasey stated that he does feel for them. Ms. Berry said that, in 2013, she did not think the deck was in violation. Chairman Kasey said he is trying to think of a way to help them, but that they were still going to miss the setbacks in the back. He stated that ordinances are in place for a reason, and does not think it is practical to approve the request. He said that the BZA is not here to remedy the problem for them. Ms. Burton said not being able to use the backyard or sell the house is a hardship. There were no further questions or comments from the Board; therefore, Chairman Kasey closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Next, the Board took action on the variance request. Ms. Grose made a motion to deny the variance request. Ms. Hagins seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and there was some confusion on the part of two members during the vote. Once clarified, Ms. Tucei repeated the motion and second. She stated that Ms. Grose had made a motion to deny the variance request, with Ms. Hagins seconding the motion made by Ms. Grose. She said if members vote yes during the roll call, they will be agreeing that the variance should be denied by the BZA. If members vote no during the roll call, they will be disagreeing that the variance should be denied. Another roll call vote was taken, and all members voted yes in favor of the motion to deny the variance. Next each member discussed why they voted as they did. Ms. Grose said they are already in violation of the ordinance, and the BZA cannot set a precedence allowing anyone to have an inch or two because that would open a Pandora’s Box and invite others to try to do the same. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 PAGE 6 Ms. Hagins stated that she agreed with what Ms. Grose said and that is why she voted in favor of denial. Vice Chairman Michelsen said that, as much as he wants to help them, it is not what the BZA’s charge is, which is to strictly apply the ordinance. Chairman Kasey said that the deck was in violation of the setbacks to begin with, and it should have been corrected long ago. He stated that he voted in favor of the motion to deny the variance because the deck is in violation and there is no hardship. Ms. McMillan stated that the decision of the BZA can be appealed at the Circuit Court within 30 days of this public hearing date. There was no other business to discuss; therefore, Chairman Kasey adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anita J. McMillan Board of Zoning Appeals Secretary