CHESAPEAKE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING April 28, 2016

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CHESAPEAKE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING April 28, 2016"

Georgiana Wilson
5 years ago
Views:

1 CHESAPEAKE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING April 28, Cedar Road, Chesapeake, VA Chesapeake City Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Bedois called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: The BZA Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Carl Thrift, Member Mrs. Erin Bedois, Vice-Chairman Mr. Bruce Wethington, Member Mr. Terry Woodhouse, Member Mr. Andrew Kubovcik, Member Mr. Claude Floyd, III Chairman Mrs. Tanya Lomax, Alternate Member Mr. Carl Matthews, Alternate Member Mr. Herbert Laine, Member Mr. John T. King, III, Zoning Administrator Mr. Dale K. Ware, Zoning Liaison Mrs. Michelle Hackett, BZA Secretary Mr. Ryan C. Samuel, Assistant City Attorney

2 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the December 10, 2015 Public Hearings did not have a quorum for approval. The Minutes of the March 24, 2016 Public Hearing were approved by a vote of 3-0-2, motion made by Mr. Thrift seconded by Mr. Woodhouse. The Minutes of the February 25, 2016 Public Hearing were approved by a vote of , motion made by Mr. Thrift seconded by Mr. Wethington. IV. OLD BUSINESS: The Secretary read Application #15-14 into the record for Board review and action. A. Application # James A. Leftwich, Jr. POA for Robert J Jr & Linda N Taylor, property owners, 801 Fentress Airfield Road, pursuant to Section of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance, appealing a zoning violation notice issued to the property dated March 13, 2015 for violation of Section of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance operating a motor vehicle engine and body repair, renovation, or painting and tow truck service prohibited as a home occupation in a residential zoning district. The property is further identified as 7 Lord Rodney Estates Sec Ac; Real Estate Parcel No , Zoning Classification: RE1, residential. Mr. Leftwich requested to continue application to May 26 th, Continuance was granted Kubovcik\Wethington V. NEW PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: The Secretary read Application #15-24 into the record for Board review and action. A. Application # Jay & Anna Paciulli, property owners, 204 Hallbridge Drive, requesting a variance of 2 feet from Section A.1 of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance from the maximum fence height of 4 feet to allow a 6-foot tall fence constructed without a permit to remain in an established front yard. The property is further identified as 22 Hall Manor; Real Estate Parcel No , Zoning R15S, residential. Page 2 of 12

3 The Secretary stated there was one registered speaker supporting Application # Proponents for Application #15-24: Jay Paciulli -204 Hallbridge Dr. Proponent: Mr. Paciulli presented his case to the board. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the Zoning Administrator. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning Administrator, Mr. John King, stated after receiving an anonymous complaint concerning a second residential structure added to the rear of the property. Staff investigated and discovered that an accessory building was constructed without permits. Applicant was issued a notice of violation for failure to obtain the permits. When applicant provided the survey the construction did not comply with the required setbacks distances for the rear and side yards. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to obtain the required permits and keep the building in the location depicted in the survey. CZO B.3.C.2 requires accessory structures to maintain a 5 foot rear yard setback. CZO a.3.b.1 requires a minimum side yard setback of 6 feet. There has been no evidence presented here tonight that would indicate that a hardship as defined by the state exists on the property. The property is not of an unusual configuration. The structure could be constructed on the lot in a location that would meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance without the need of a variance. The structure was constructed illegally and would therefore not meet the criteria for granting a variance based on the requirements of the state code. Staff recommends the variance be denied. To your questions about the man cave vs the guest house. There is a section on the ordinance that will allow a guest house but it goes to further define the guest house as for temporary stays, it can t be lived in and there can be no provisions for eating or preparing food in the structures such as all meals are taken in the primary structure, it can be called man cave, guest house or whatever it just cannot be occupied any more than for temporary guest. Refrigerator, stove and microwave are not allowed. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the City Attorney. City Attorney, Ryan Samuel, concurred with the Zoning Administrator. There has been no evidence of a hardship. The variance application should fail. Page 3 of 12

4 Vice Chair Bedois called for a motion on Application # Mr. Laine motioned to approve Application # Mr. Thrift seconded the motion Motion failed Vice Chair Bedois motioned to Deny Application # Mr. Wethington seconded the motion. Board Action: Motion: Mr. Kubovcik Second: Mr. Wethington Vote: The Board of Zoning Appeals Granted Application # Vice Chair Bedois asked the Secretary to read the next item of business into the record. The Secretary read Application #15-29 into the record for Board review and action. B. Application # Kevin C & Melissa Pope, property owners, 2029 Phyllis Drive, requesting a variance of 2 ft., from Section A.1 of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance, to exceed the maximum height for fences, walls and hedges in a side yard from 6 ft. to 8 ft. adjacent to the next door neighbor. The property is further identified as 9 Pinetta & Por St, Real Estate Parcel Number , Zoning Classification R-10S, residential. The Secretary stated there was two registered speakers supporting Application # Proponents for Application #15-29: Melissa Pope Albermrle Dr, Norfolk Opponents for Application #15-29: None Proponents: Page 4 of 12

5 Ms. Pope stated his case. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the Zoning Administrator. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning Administrator, Mr. John King, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow an aluminum canopy and two sheds to remain on the property were they were installed. A variance is requested for the aluminum canopy from the required 10ft side yard to 0 currently provided, and a variance is requested for the two sheds from to a 10 yard setback required to a less than a foot side yard that is provided. These accessory structures have been placed on the property over the past 15 years without permits. The zoning regulations from which the applicant is asking relief is shared generally by all the residential properties in this district the granting of the variance would amount to special privilege or convenience. Although the applicant may incur increased economic cost for relocation into the permitted areas an economic cost does not the criteria for the granting of the variance, finally staff believes the granting of the variance will change the character of the zoning district in which the property is located as reduced side yard setback are permitted only in higher density zoning districts. With this information and along with the strict construct of the state law the zoning ordinance the staff recommends denial of the variance application. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the City Attorney. City Attorney, Ryan Samuel, concurred with the Zoning Administrator, to grant the variance you would have to find the CZO is unreasonable restricting the utilization of the property which is not the case because he is living there. Or there is a physical condition of the property. There is no hardship related to physical condition, it tis financial one from him violating the ordinance, that is a self-inflicted hardship. One of the conditions of granting a variance there is no self-inflicted hardship, because this is the case the variance application must fail. Vice chair Bedois presented a question for Mr. King or Mr. Samuel; the applicant has provided photographs of other homes in the neighborhood that appear to have similarly constructed items on the property, have these been investigated? To determine whether or not these are in compliance? I see a carport that looks exactly the same as his is, and sheds that appear to be constructed on the fence, if these are in fact what is on his neighborhood and we are telling him he need to take everything down, will these property owners will also be notified they are not in compliance? Mr. King responded; Based on staffing levels and have been this way form some time, we react particularly by complaint that was the case here. If we were to get a complaint, even the applicant quite frequently and we don t encourage this by Page 5 of 12

6 any means people who get citations will say take care of that, take care of that. An inspected will never get to the site if they stop every time they see a zoning violation. Vice Chair Bedois called for a motion on Application # Mr. Kubovcik motioned to approve Application # Mr. Wethington seconded the motion. Vice chair Bedois, wanted to add to the motion; the subsection 1. Property was acquired in good faith, has been there; 2. It s not a weirdly shaped property however not allowing this would effectively restrict him the utilization of the property. Whereas other properties in the neighborhood are being permitted to use their property as the court has indicated that he cannot use it. So it does produce an undue hardship on number 3 for him, because it does seem that he is being targeted to remove things where other properties are not. Other properties have the exact same condition that he s being told he has to remove. No complaints on against the other property owners who have the same thing there. For that reason he has met the requirements for the variance and would move along with Mr. Lane to approve this request. Will not be a detriment to the other property owners and will not affect the character of the neighborhood if the rest of the neighborhood has similar structures on them. Vice Chair Bedois called for the vote on Application # Board Action: Motion: Mr. Kubovcik Second: Mr. Wethington Vote: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved Application # C. Application #15-31 Amir & Lorrie L Ahangari, property owners, 1401 Jolliff Road, requesting a variance from Section A.3.b.(2) of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear yard setback of 30 feet to 12 feet to add a proposed breezeway addition between an existing detached garage and single-family dwelling. The property is further identified as Sur Marion Charlton Prop.969 Ac; Real Estate Parcel No , Zoning R-15S, residential. The Secretary stated there was two registered speakers supporting Application # Page 6 of 12

7 Proponents for Application #15-31: Amir Ahangari Jolliff Rd Samson Okafor Old Woodland Dr Opponents for Application #15-31: None Proponents: Mr. Okafor and Mr. Ahangari stated their case. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the Zoning Administrator. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Vice Chair Bedois called for a motion on Application # Mr. Kubovcik motioned to approve Application # Mr. Wethington seconded the motion. Vice chair Bedois, wanted to add to the motion; the subsection 1. Property was acquired in good faith, has been there; 2. It s not a weirdly shaped property however not allowing this would effectively restrict him the utilization of the property. Whereas other properties in the neighborhood are being permitted to use their property as the court has indicated that he cannot use it. So it does produce an undue hardship on number 3 for him, because it does seem that he is being targeted to remove things where other properties are not. Other properties have the exact same condition that he s being told he has to remove. No complaints on against the other property owners who have the same thing there. For that reason he has met the requirements for the variance and would move along with Mr. Lane to approve this request. Will not be a detriment to the other property owners and will not affect the character of the neighborhood if the rest of the neighborhood has similar structures on them. Vice Chair Bedois called for the vote on Application # Board Action: Motion: Mr. Kubovcik Second: Mr. Wethington Vote: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved Application # Page 7 of 12

8 D. Application #14-47 Mark D. Williamson, Esq. and/or McGuireWoods LLP, POA for Bulldog Ventures and Investments, LLC d/b/a BIDRITE, Operator/Tenant and NUNI Associates, property owner, 1104 George Washington Hwy., North, pursuant to Section of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance, appealing a Notice of Violation dated October 2, 2014 determining that the use of such property constitutes an Computer Based Gaming Establishment in violation of Section 7-602, Table of permitted and conditional uses in business districts of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance. The property is further identified as Pt Homestead Tr & Pt Par D Pt Homestead Fm Ac, Real Estate Parcel No , Zoning Classification B-1, neighborhood business. Mr. Williamson requested to continue application to May 26 th, Continuance was granted Kubovcik\Thrift E. Application #16-17 Paul S Jr & Lynda R Tolson, property owners, Canal Drive, 2978 S Military Hwy, 2974 S Military Hwy requesting a variance to 1 foot along the southern property lines of 3 lots for a fence and buffer yard D that screens an outdoor contractor storage yard in a business zoning district adjacent to residential zoning from Sections A.3.c.(1), A.3.c.(2), and of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance side yard reduction of 20 to 1, - rear yard reduction of 30 to 1, and - buffer D reduction from 15 to 1, to request approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the outdoor storage of equipment and vehicles for an existing business (Reynolds Landscaping) on the site currently in violation of a determination dated December 22, The property is further identified as C-2 Resub Lot C Cor & Amended Plat Broadmoor, C-1 Resub Lot C Cor & Amended Plat Broadmoor, 38 Amded Minor Sub Lts 38, 60, 61 Broadmoor Ac, Real Estate Parcel Numbers , , , Zoning Classification B-2, business/pln-use Proponents for Application #16-17: Paul Tolson- 869 Canal Dr. Opponents for Application #16-17: Page 8 of 12

9 None Proponents: Mr. Tolson stated his case. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the Zoning Administrator. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Vice Chair Bedois called for a motion on Application # Mr. Laine motioned to approve Application # Mr. Wethington seconded the motion. Vice chair Bedois, wanted to add to the motion; the subsection 1. Property was acquired in good faith, has been there; 2. It s not a weirdly shaped property however not allowing this would effectively restrict him the utilization of the property. Whereas other properties in the neighborhood are being permitted to use their property as the court has indicated that he cannot use it. So it does produce an undue hardship on number 3 for him, because it does seem that he is being targeted to remove things where other properties are not. Other properties have the exact same condition that he s being told he has to remove. No complaints on against the other property owners who have the same thing there. For that reason he has met the requirements for the variance and would move along with Mr. Lane to approve this request. Will not be a detriment to the other property owners and will not affect the character of the neighborhood if the rest of the neighborhood has similar structures on them. Vice Chair Bedois called for the vote on Application # Board Action: Motion: Mr. Laine Second: Mr. Wethington Vote: The Board of Zoning Appeals denied Application # F. Application #16-18 Todd & Holly Starks, property owners, 1212 Hillside Avenue, requesting a variance from Section A.3.b. (1) of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance from the minimum required side yard setback of 10 feet to 8 feet for a Page 9 of 12

10 proposed 12 x20 carport. The property is further identified as 302 Stonegate Sec 1; Real Estate Parcel No , Zoning R-15S, residential. Proponents for Application #16-18: Holly Starks Hillside Ave Jeffrey Smith Hillside Ave Opponents for Application #16-18: None Proponents: Mrs. Starks and Mr. Smith stated their case. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the Zoning Administrator. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Vice Chair Bedois called for a motion on Application # Mr. Laine motioned to deny Application # Mr. Wethington seconded the motion. Vice chair Bedois, wanted to add to the motion; the subsection 1. Property was acquired in good faith, has been there; 2. It s not a weirdly shaped property however not allowing this would effectively restrict him the utilization of the property. Whereas other properties in the neighborhood are being permitted to use their property as the court has indicated that he cannot use it. So it does produce an undue hardship on number 3 for him, because it does seem that he is being targeted to remove things where other properties are not. Other properties have the exact same condition that he s being told he has to remove. No complaints on against the other property owners who have the same thing there. For that reason he has met the requirements for the variance and would move along with Mr. Lane to approve this request. Will not be a detriment to the other property owners and will not affect the character of the neighborhood if the rest of the neighborhood has similar structures on them. Vice Chair Bedois called for the vote on Application # Board Action: Motion: Mr. Laine Second: Mr. Wethington Vote: Page 10 of 12

11 The Board of Zoning Appeals denied Application # G. Application #16-19 Walton P. Burkhimer, Jr. of American Engineering Associates, POA for Kaiser Properties, LLC, property owner, 401 Waters Rd., requesting a variance from Section A.2 of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance from the minimum lot width and frontage requirement for the creation of proposed lot Y-2 from the required 90 feet and 72 feet to a proposed 47 feet, a reduction of 43 feet (width) and 25 feet (frontage.) The property is further identified as Parcel Y, Re-subdivision of a portion of lots 1 & 2, Woodstock Farm, Pleasant Grove; Real Estate Parcel No , Zoning Classification R-15S, residential. Proponents for Application #16-19: Jeff Kaiser- 401 Waters Rd John Duttman- 509 Twelve oaks Pete Burkhimer Martin Johnson Rd Opponents for Application #16-19: None Proponents: Mr. Warren and Mr. Burkhimer stated their case. Vice Chair Bedois asked to hear from the Zoning Administrator. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Vice Chair Bedois called for a motion on Application # Mr. Kubovcik motioned to grant Application # Mr. Thrift seconded the motion. Vice chair Bedois, wanted to add to the motion; the subsection 1. Property was acquired in good faith, has been there; 2. It s not a weirdly shaped property however not allowing this would effectively restrict him the utilization of the property. Whereas other properties in the neighborhood are being permitted to use their property as the court has indicated that he cannot use it. So it does produce an undue hardship on number 3 for him, because it does seem that he is being Page 11 of 12

12 targeted to remove things where other properties are not. Other properties have the exact same condition that he s being told he has to remove. No complaints on against the other property owners who have the same thing there. For that reason he has met the requirements for the variance and would move along with Mr. Lane to approve this request. Will not be a detriment to the other property owners and will not affect the character of the neighborhood if the rest of the neighborhood has similar structures on them. Vice Chair Bedois called for the vote on Application # Board Action: Motion: Mr. Kubovcik Second: Mr. Thrift Vote: The Board of Zoning Appeals granted Application # The Secretary stated this concludes all the applications. VI. New Business: None to consider. VII. Review of Litigation: Assistant City Attorney, Ryan Samuel, stated The Zoning Administrator appealed to the circuit court application #16-14 and is still pending, Dominion Power appealed the hearing is scheduled for April 20th, 2016, Greensville Transport briefing has been done for the petition to appeal for Supreme Court but not heard if it has been accepted. Additional remanded cases will be heard at the next meeting. VIII. Adjournment: 7:55 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Michelle Hackett, BZA Secretary Date MINUTES APPROVED BY: Mr. Claude Ross Floyd, III, Chairman BZA Date Page 12 of 12

A G E N D A. Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals. December 18, 2018

A G E N D A. Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals. December 18, 2018 TO: FROM: RE: Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals Melody Kearse, Zoning Coordinator Meeting Agenda DATE: December 13, 2018 The Rock Hill Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December