Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/26/2021 - Zoning Appeal - Minutes -Board of Zoning Appeals MINUTES Thursday, August 26, 2021, 4:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on August 26, 2021. Notice of such hearing was published in the August 12, and 19, 2021, issues of the "Salem Times Register", a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City. All adjacent property owners were notified via the U. S. Postal Service. The Board, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; and the following business was transacted: Chairman DuBois called the hearing to order at 4:00p.m. Absent: Derr, Eanes, Belanger 2. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider approval of the minutes of the May 27, 2021, meeting. Vice-Chair Copenhaver. motioned to consider approval of the minutes of the May 27, 2021, meeting. Mr. Sellers seconded the motion. Ayes: DuBois, Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers Absent: Derr, Eanes, Belanger 2. New Business Chairman DuBois explained that the Board consists of five members. In order to be granted an approval, a simple majority of the membership of the board must be obtained. In essence, if there are four of the five members in attendance today, you must receive the approval of three members. You have the right to request a continuance to another meeting where all five members are in attendance. Should you wish to continue your request, please let it be known. Chairman DuBois declared that should anyone disagree with the Board's decision today you have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of Salem. You must exercise your right to appeal no later than thirty (30) days following the Board's decision by filing a petition to the Circuit Court specifying the grounds on which you are aggrieved. A. Variance Request The request of Matthew and Kathryn Cookston, property owners, for a variance from Section 106-202.3(8)(1) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site development regulations, for the property located at 436 Westland Street, Tax Map# 171-2-13. The petitioners are requesting a variance of 8.2 feet of side-yard setback and 25 feet of rear-yard setback to allow an addition. Section 106-202.3(8)(1) states that a side-yard setback of ten percent (8.2 feet) and a 25 feet rear-yard setback is required. Proper legal notice was given, and all adjacent property owners were notified. Chairman DuBois inquired if there was any correspondence. Ms. Wines responded affirmatively that a phone call from a neighbor on the east side of the entrance to the park was received. Once the proposal was explained the neighbor did not have any issues with the request. Chairman DuBois asked if the Board had a chance to view the property. All members present responded that they had seen the property. Chairman DuBois opened the public hearing and invited the petitioners to approach the podium. Mr. Matthew Peters with Covenant Engineering, 2728 Colonial Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015, appeared before the Board. Mr. Peters stated that they developed the drawings for the petitioners. He stated that the property owner, was out of state and could not attend the meeting. He thought the reason for the request was included in the packet. Ms. Wines replied that the petitioners are requesting a variance to allow an addition on the house for a large family room and full bathroom. Vice-Chair Copenhaver asked if the addition would, in any way, extend into the neighboring properties. Mr. Peters replied that a survey was completed and that there was fourteen feet to the property line and that the addition would not extend to the property line. Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired if the city had any objections to the request since it is adjacent to the entrance to the park the city owns. Ms. Wines responded that city management has reviewed the application and it is felt that the addition will not impede with the pedestrian traffic into the park, so the city has no opinion. Mr. Sellers stated that from his observance that there is another eight feet or so between the addition and the fence to the alley going into the park. Ms. Wines replied that the fence that is marked on the plat is nine feet into the City's property. They have since put up a fence on their property line so the secondary fence, the fence to the west, shows the actual property line. Vice-Chair Copenhaver stated that the fence along the entrance into the park has not been moved. Would the city have any interest in trying to reclaim those nine feet by forcing them to move the fence back. Ms. Wines answered that the City was not going to take action at this time but if it was ever necessary to utilize the full width of the entrance that they could come through and remove the fence that encroaches into city property. Chairman DuBois asked if the petitioner requested to have the alley vacated. Ms. Wines responded that the petitioner did not submit an official request, but the city would not necessarily consider the request due to the traffic that utilizes this park entrance. Mr. Gresham asked if staff knew that when the neighborhood was developed that there was some sort of error and there was incorrect information at that time. Ms. Wines replied that she was not aware of that, that the pictures on the GIS were not completely accurate, but that the property lines should be correct. Chair DuBois asked how much actual space is there between the corner of the addition and the property line. Mr. Peters replied one foot. Mr. Sellers inquired if there was to be an overhang on the addition that would encroach into the one foot. Mr. Peters stated not that it is a flush gable end on that one wall. Chairman DuBois inquired if the city would ever be interested in widening the park entrance. Ms. Wines responded that there are two other entrances to the park and staff does use the northern entrance for equipment and the entrance in question is typically just pedestrian traffic. Chairman DuBois asked if there was anyone else to speak on this matter Mr. Dustin Wimbush of 426 Westland Street appeared before the Board. He stated he is the neighbor closest to the addition. He fully supports their request. Chairman DuBois asked if there was anyone else to speak on this matter and hearing none closed the public hearing. Chairman DuBois asked the Board for any discussion and hearing none he would entertain a motion. Mr. Gresham motioned to grant a variance of 8.2 feet of side-yard setback and 25 feet of rear-yard setback to allow an addition. Mr. Sellers seconded the motion. Ayes: DuBois, Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers Absent: Derr, Eanes, Belanger Adjournment Chairman DuBois adjourned the meeting at 4:11 p.m. ATTEST: Winston f:UuBois, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals