Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2021 - Zoning Appeal - Minutes -Board of Zoning Appeals MINUTES Thursday, October 28, 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 October 28, 2021. Notice of such hearing was published in the October 14, and 21, 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 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 Richard E. and Betty W. Bryson, 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 1507 Millwood Drive, Tax Map# 205-1-2.4. The petitioners are requesting a variance of 9 feet of side-yard setback to allow a carport addition. Section 106-202.3(8)(1) states that a side-yard setback of ten percent (9.0 feet) is required. Chairman DuBois inquired if there was any correspondence. Ms. Wines responded affirmatively that a phone call from Mr. Clinton Frost, property owner of 1509 Millwood Drive called to voice his support of 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. Mrs. Betty Bryson, 1507 Millwood Drive, Salem, appeared before the Board. Mrs. Bryson stated that they would like to construct a carport. It could be enclosed, or an open carport would be fine. They just need cover from the weather for their car for safety reasons for her husband. This is their retirement home. Her husband is an 100% disabled veteran. He has trouble with falling. This home is one level. They have had floor work done to make sure there are no trip hazards. Whenever there is inclement weather, they need the car cover to safely get him in and out. He has had surgeries and has been in a wheelchair. This home allows for the wheelchair because it is flat going into the home. Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired as to how it would attach to the home. Will it be attached to the house or will it be freestanding. Mrs. Bryson replied that she had only gotten one estimate and they wanted to do what drill down into the concrete that is there and put in footers. The wall clearly has an excellent footer. They said they could not tie into the house that it has to have separate supports. She does not want to drill into the existing concrete if she does not have to. Chairman DuBois asked if the structure was a permanent structure and not a portable carport. Mrs. Bryson stated that she wants a permanent one that ties into the way the house looks. Mr. Gresham questioned if under those conditions they would attach it to the house. Mrs. Bryson replied that it would have separate supports, but they will tie into the roof of the existing house. 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. Belanger motioned to grant a variance of nine feet of side-yard setback to allow a carport addition. Vice Chair Copenhaver seconded the motion. Ayes: DuBois, Copenhaver, Gresham, Belanger Absent: Derr, Eanes, Sellers Variance Request The request of Richard H. and Elizabeth K. Macher, property owners, for a variance from Section 106-204.3(8)(2) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site development regulations, for the property located at 1900 South Clearing Road and 1900 block South Clearing Road, Tax Map #s 277-1-4 and 285-13-1, respectively. The petitioners are requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 28' x 22' pool house and 16' x 32' pool in the side yard. Section 106-204.3(8)(2) states that accessory structures must be built behind the rear building line of the principal structure (or in the rear yard). Chairman DuBois inquired if there was any correspondence. Ms. Wines responded affirmatively that letters had been received in opposition of the request from Virginia Mosnoss, and Dorothy Thomas, property owners of 2500 Oak Ridge Lane and Mrs. Sylvia Williams, property owner of 2502 oak Ridge Lane. M$ Mary Ellen Wines Zoning Administrator Salem, Va 24153 Ms Wines, 18Oct2021 We received the letter frorn your office concerning the construction of a pool and pool house on the Ma�her property. We went to the zoning office and were given the Arc:GIS web map. We have 1he following concerns pertainine: to ttiis request: 1. The pool house is 616 SQ ft and is bigggr than our 2-car gar;1ge .. There Is no mention on the web milp .is to the height of the propo�ed pool house. How tall ls the pi;,ol house? What Is the purpose of the pool house? Will this serve as a party function? This s tru ctu re 'ias the pote n ti a I to b r. di.sru ptive of the beaut ifu I view w III c:u rrently a re enjoying. This appe,m to be too close to our property line. Since the pool house i$ larger th,,n the i:,ool, we as,ume it will .sccommodate parties with mu!:.it, noise, and litjhting. 4. Pool pump:!. can be very noisy. 3. Should there bR ii malfunction with any part of the pool and lea kl ng/seep.1ge become a problem we fear thP. w..itl:!r could come downhill onto our property. This has happemrd ta our rela1ive and was q1Jitl'! the rni:s:!. and inconveniem;e. 5. With a pool and pool hou5e io dose to our property we ;ire conc:�med with the resale V,jl1.1e or our home. 6. We are not opposed to the pool and pool house IF It c:ould be moved further aw.iv from our property line, There is a l;irge open unused area ofland furttier awaytrom us. 7. We ha11e just had our screen porch redone ar1d love sitting watching the clouds and nature. We p;irticularly bought this pa.io home because there is no house in view ri&ht behind us. We moved nere for the tranqullitv .ind peacefulness of this neigilborhood. Virginia Mosness Dorothy Thom;i� 2500 Oak Ridge Lane Salem, Va 24153 _Q 1J.1·Et VE WAv, 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. Jason Lucas, contractor, 2030 Shenandoah Avenue Roanoke, Virginia. The owners would like to put a 16 x 32 pool to the left of the house and 22 x 28 pool house beyond that. Single story 19 .5 foot tall from finished grade. There are two lots that need to be combined. There is no backyard to speak of except for the driveway in the rear. There is no possibility of putting a pool house behind the house. They have a huge lot in the front, left and right as well. Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired as to how tall, in response to one of the letters received, will the pool house be in relation to the current structure. Mr. Lucas responded that the pool house would be 19.5 foot tall, and the grade of the yard is above the neighbors down below. In relation to the existing house, it will be between the first and second floor of the house. Chairman DuBois questioned if the structure was a single-family house or an apartment building. Mr. Lucas stated that one section of the house is rented. Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired if the existing house was part of the homeowner's association of the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Macher, owner, appeared before the Board stating that this was the old McVitty House. There is no back yard. The pool would not fit with the required setback. The reason it is two lots is that the original lot was 1.4 acres. He ended up buying the rest of the land to protect the house. The deed restricted building to tennis courts, pool and garage. There are two parcels not included in the homeowner's association. The carriage house lot and the lot with the old McVitty House. One of the restrictions on the development was that no structure could be built higher than the first floor of the McVitty House. The view will not be altered because the neighboring houses roofline is at or below the grade of his property. Mr. Belanger asked if he lived in the side of 1900. Mr. Macher responded affirmatively. The house is 24,000 square feet. Who could ever live in 24,000 square feet. There were 6 apartments when he purchased the property and as his family grew the 6 apartments ended up becoming 2 apartments. They have a totally separate entrance. Mr. Belanger asked if they enter on the opposite side from the proposed pool. Mr. Macher responded affirmatively. Chairman DuBois asked if the pool would be open to the tenants and their guests. Mr. Macher responded that yes because they are mostly family, but it would not be a community pool. He further stated that the neighboring properties were all blocked by trees. Chairman DuBois inquired if the pool house would be on the lot that has not been joined with the rest of the property. Mr. Macher replied yes. Chairman DuBois responded that they would have to submit a combination plat. He asked staff if that had been submitted as of yet. Ms. Wines responded that it had not been submitted as of yet. But it could be a condition of the Board's approval if they so choose. They would be unable to obtain a building permit if the combination plat were not submitted and approved. Chairman DuBois asked staff if the 17-foot setback shown would be sufficient. Ms. Wines responded affirmatively that the required setback would only be five feet. After further discussion, 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. Vice Chair Copenhaver motioned to grant a variance to allow the construction of a 28 x 22-foot pool house and a 16 x 32 pool in the side yard on the condition that the two lots be combined. Mr. Belanger seconded the motion. Ayes: DuBois, Copenhaver, Gresham, Belanger Absent: Derr, Eanes, Sellers Adjournment Chairman DuBois adjourned the meeting at 4:31 p.m. ATTEST: Winston J. uBois, Chairman Board of Zonin �ppeals