HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/25/2021 - Zoning Appeal - Agenda -Board of Zoning Appeals
AGENDA
Thursday, February 25, 2021, 4:00 PM
Salem Civic Center, Community Room, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia 24153
1.C all to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Election of Officers
A.E lection of Officers
Consider the election of C hairman and Vice-C hairman for 2021.
B.Appoint Secretary P ro-Tem
Consider appointing a Secretary Pro Tem.
4.C onsent Agenda
A.Minutes
C onsider approval of the minutes of the September 21, 2017, October 22, 2020, and December 23,
2020, meetings.
5.Old Business
6.New Business
A.Variance Request
Request of Mikel L. and Sheryl H. Trenor, property owners, for a variance from Section 106-
202.3(B)(2), minimum setback requirements, of the Code of the C ity of Salem, to allow the
construction of a two hundred and six square foot inground pool located at 309 Fort Lewis
Boulevard (Tax Map # 130-2-29). Section 106-202.3(B)(2) states that accessory structures
shall be placed behind the rear building line of the principal structure. T he petitioners are
therefore requesting a variance to allow the construction of a two hundred and six square
foot inground pool in the front yard.
B.2020 Annual Report
C onsider acceptance of the 2020 Annual Report with authorization to submit to the Salem Planning
C ommission.
7.C losed Session
8.Adjournment
Footnote
- i - September 21, 2017
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 21, 2017
A public hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held
after due and proper notice in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 4:00
p.m., on September 21, 2017. Notice of such hearing was published in the September 7, and the
September 14, 2017, 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 Steve Yost, City Attorney;
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning
Administrator, and Rita Wygal, Secretary; and the following business was transacted:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DuBois called the hearing to order at 4:00p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Mr. Frank B. Sellers, Jr., Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver, Gary, L. Eanes, Vice-
Chair F. Van Gresham and Chairman Winston J. DuBois.
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. DECLARATION OF APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT
Chairman DuBois stated that it takes a simple majority to take action regarding a variance
request. The Board may ask questions of those who are testifying; however, cross examination
will not be allowed. Should anyone disagree with the Board’s decision they shall have the right
to appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of Salem. An appeal must be filed no later than thirty
(30) days following the Board’s decision by filing a petition to the Circuit Court specifying the
grounds on which aggrieved.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
WHEREAS Chairman DuBois opened the public hearing at 4:04 p.m.
A. Request of A. Gerald and Leisa K. Ciaffone, property owners, for a variance
from Section 106-202.3(B), minimum setback requirements, of the Code of the City of
Salem, to allow the attachment of a 24’ x 25’ existing detached garage to the existing single-
family dwelling at 715 Red Lane (Tax Map # 213 – 1 – 7.1). Section 106—202.3(B) states
that the rear setback shall be twenty-five feet (25’) and the side yard setback shall be ten feet
(10’). The petitioners are therefore requesting a variance of fourteen feet (14’) of the rear
setback and four feet (4’) of the side setback.
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois inquired if the City had received any correspondence
regarding this matter; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wines replied that there had been no correspondence received; and
WHEREAS, Gerry Ciaffone, 715 Red Lane, appeared before the Board stating that in 2016,
they built a garage on the property. There is extra space for storage and a place to do projects
without being interrupted. In 2017, our daughter who lives out of state decided to return to Salem.
- ii - September 21, 2017
We want to give her a place to live while she is going to graduate school and working. This
prompted us to investigate the possibility of converting the attic over the garage to an apartment
for her use. In order to convert it to an apartment we need the variance because it is well within
the setbacks for the garage but not for the residence. We are asking the Board to grant the variance
based upon the evidence that we are responding to the five points required under the code. The
first one that the property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good
faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant. We acquired the property in 1995. We
built the garage in 2016 in good faith following the permitting and inspection process at that time.
We had not planned on our daughter returning home. And we had not planned on building an
apartment for her. We discovered our need for the variance in 2017. The second point is the
granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property or nearby
properties. Granting the variance will pose no detriment to all the adjacent properties. There will
be no change in occupancy on the property. There is no change in use as a single-family residence.
Since we’ve owned the property it has housed 4 to 5 people and now it houses 2. It will be occupied
by 3 if these planned are approved. There will be no additional traffic and no more vehicles than
when our daughter lived there as a dependent. There is plenty of parking in the driveway for her
car so the street can remain clear. The adjacent neighbors to our south, the ones closest to the
garage, are Wayne and Mary Ann Taylor. They have been supportive of the project. They have a
detached building which is attached to their home by a covered walkway, so their plan is similar
to what our plan is. We have discussed our plan with all of the adjacent neighbors. We have also
spoken to other neighbors in the area. The third point the condition or situation of the property is
not as so general or recurring in nature as to make reasonable or practical formation of a general
regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. We think that this situation is specific
to our family and our property. We do not foresee many people finding themselves in the same
position that we are in. The fourth point is the granting of the variance does not result in a use that
is not otherwise permitted on such property. We are not asking for anything new. Granting the
variance will not result in a use that is otherwise not permitted or change the zoning classification
because the apartment will never be rented for profit or other valuable consideration. It will only
be used for the family. The apartment will be used for our daughter for as long as she needs it.
We guarantee that it will not be rented or used for any commercial venture in the future and we
have no interest in renting it out to strangers. The fifth point, the relief or remedies sought by the
variance application is not available through a special exemption process or the process for
modification of a zoning ordinance at the time of the filing or variance application. The setback
requirement cannot be modified by a special exemption. So, we do not seek to modify the zoning
ordinance because we do not seek to change our property to anything other than single-family
residence. We have read the staff report and are following its recommendations. We have included
the preliminary survey with the garage and the vacation of old lot lines. We have included a plan
for what we want to do inside the garage as well as architectural renderings for the connector
addition. I will answer any questions; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois inquired if there were any issues with setbacks when the
garage was constructed; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ciaffone replied no, that all setbacks were met for a detached garage; and
actually they moved it in just to be safe; and
- iii - September 21, 2017
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if the rental of a garage apartment was prohibited in
the code; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wines responded affirmatively. She continued that if the variance is
granted today, then the property owners will have to go through a special exception permit
application with City Council, to have the accessory apartment approved. The use and design
standards for an accessory apartment, if approved, prohibits the rental of the unit and allows only
family members to reside.
WHEREAS, Captain Copenhaver inquired if there would be any structural change to the
exterior of the two sides that are in question; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ciaffone responded no except at the side door where the connector will
be constructed; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if the Board had any other questions, hearing none,
he asked if there were any others to come to the podium to speak; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Kurt Steele appeared before the Board stating that he lived at 706 Red
Lane. Mr. Kurt further stated that they had no objection to the variance request; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked the Board if there were any further discussion.
Hearing none, he asked if there was anyone else to speak on the matter. Hearing none, he closed
the public hearing at 4:28 p.m.
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR GRESHAM, SECONDED BY BOARD
MEMBER EANES, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board is of the opinion and it is accordingly so
ordered that.
a. Captain Copenhaver stated that the current ordinance did not unnecessarily restrict
the property.
b. The request for a variance is hereby granted.
Frank B. Sellers, Jr. Aye
Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver Nay
Gary L. Eanes Aye
F. Van Gresham Aye
Winston J. DuBois Aye
B. Request of WilliamHart, LLC, property owner, for a variance from Section 106-
202.3(B), minimum setback requirements, of the Code of the City of Salem, to allow the
construction of a residential single-family dwelling at 222 South Shanks Street (Tax Map # 143 –
7 – 3). Section 106-202.3(B) states that the side setback shall be five feet (5’). The petitioner is
therefore requesting a variance of one foot six tenths (1.6’) of each side setback.
WHEREAS, Jim Wallace, operating manager for WilliamHart, LLC, appeared before the
Board stating that he purchased a dilapidated structure and would like to tear it down. It would
improve the neighborhood. They would like to build a new home, but would need help with the
side setbacks; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois inquired that the plans state the home will be built on the
existing foundation and when he visited the site, the home had been torn down and there is
nothing left, the foundation had been removed and the lot seeded; and
- iv - September 21, 2017
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace agreed that is was just a vacant lot. He stated that they would
still need the variance in order to build a viable home; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois explained that looking at the plans and the lot layout it
appears to be a self-inflicted hardship and the variance required is due to the house plan that was
chosen. There are house plans designed for narrow lots. Chairman DuBois inquired if they had
considered one of those plans; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace stated that the economics of the project require using an off the
shelf type of plan. It is not economically feasible to build a custom home. As a compromise he
would be willing to take the soffits off the sides of the house and then it would be a six inch
variance on each side if that is a big hang up. For the area it is going to be an improvement for
the neighborhood regardless; and
WHEREAS, Boardmember Copenhaver explained that when looking at the drawings it
show a fifty foot wide lot. The house is forty feet wide with two one foot overhangs. Why the
request for an additional one point two feet variance?
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace explained that the Lumsden and Associates produced the plat;
and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines explained that there are one foot overhangs on each side and to
include the guttering and to be safe the request was for one point six feet just to be sure. No part
of the structure can encroach into a required yard setback; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Copenhaver stated that the previous home was situated right on the
property line. Will the new house be more centered and have more of a side setback than
originally; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace clarified that the house would be centered on the existing lot
giving a small amount of additional side yard setback on the one side; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Sellers inquired if the plans showed the house being raised to the level
required by FEMA; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace stated yes that there will be a certificate of elevation submitted
verifying that it will be elevated one foot above base flood elevation; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines stated for clarification that the same engineer showed the house
being raised about four and one half feet on the left front and three and one half on the right side;
and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if this would make the house higher than the
surrounding homes. It also appeared to him that the surrounding properties all met the required
setbacks compared to what is proposed. As the lot is currently vacant it appears that this would
be a self inflicted hardship due to the design that has been selected; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace responded that it is not self-inflicted that it is governed by what
would be a property that someone would to live in. He would probably leave the lot vacant if the
variance is denied. It would not make sense to build a house there under the current restraints so
then the City will lose tax revenue. It is an improvement to the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois stated that one of the Board’s requirements is to
determine whether or not a proposed project can be developed without the benefit of a variance
and it appears that this variance could be avoided by selecting a different house design; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if the Board had any additional questions; and
- v - September 21, 2017
WHEREAS, Mr. Copenhaver asked the Zoning Administrator if it could be confirmed
that the previous house was sitting right on the property line; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines replied that it was not right on the property line, but it was
closer than the proposed house. The front page of the staff report shows an aerial picture of the
approximate location of the previous house. It is not exact, but is fairly close with a two to three
foot side setback; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Yost stated that he wanted to disclose that he is acquainted with the
petitioners, that he does not have any legal conflict, but he did want to make the Board aware of
their acquaintance. He would like to point out that there is a Virginia Supreme Court case,
Spence vs. BZA for Virginia Beach, that states the notion of good faith acquisition of property
does not mean that the applicant for a variance must have acquired the property without any prior
knowledge of the restrictions on it. In this opinion from 1998 it upheld the decision of the BZA
to grant a variance even though they found that the owner that purchased at a low price, with full
knowledge, that he would need a variance in order to develop it; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Van Allman clarified that the map included in the staff report is a GIS
map that represents the tax maps. It is not warrantied as a legal survey. There are some parts of
the city that the lines could be off two to three feet and there are other parts of the city that they
are accurate. Unfortunately, we had to put that together from various surveys and deeds and
often times you get an aggregate of errors across fourteen point seven square miles. In this
particular case he is unaware of the accuracy, but sometimes it can be a foot or two off; and
WHEREAS, Boardmember Sellers requested clarification on the overhangs, that they
include the eves, soffits and guttering; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines responded affirmatively; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace continued that the overhangs will only enhance the street
appeal of the house, that he could legally build the house without the soffits and put the gutters
on the front and make something unattractive or with a little bit of assistance in terms of the
variance a nicer home can be built.
WHEREAS, Boardmember Eanes inquired as to the use of the property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wallace responded that it would be a rental property; and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if there were any other questions of the Board,
hearing none, he asked if there was anyone else to speak on the matter; and
WHEREAS, John Ginn, 353 North Market Street, appeared before the Board stating that
he was a concerned neighbor trying to understand exactly what is being sought. He thinks that
another structure being built on that lot would be very conducive to the neighborhood. He has a
rental property in that area and the five-foot setback that we have worked with for years is the
code that was in place back at that time. It makes it very tight, and if he understands correctly,
the request is to alter the five-foot setback with a one point six foot setback; and
WHEREAS, Boardmember Sellers responded negatively, that the request was for four
point four seven feet on either side; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ginn stated that the foundation would be four or five feet from the
property line; and
WHEREAS, Boardmember Sellers responded affirmatively; and
- vi - September 21, 2017
WHEREAS, Mr. Ginn detailed that it would be tight but as long as the foundation has a
five-foot setback that it would be acceptable, the overhang on the eve should not be a problem;
and
WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if there was anyone else to speak, hearing none,
closed the public hearing at 4:27p.m.
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GRESHAM, SECONDED BY
BOARDMEMBER SELLERS, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board is of the opinion and it is
accordingly so ordered that;
The request for a variance is hereby granted.
Frank B. Sellers, Jr. Aye
Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver Aye
Gary L. Eanes Aye
F. Van Gresham Aye
Winston J. DuBois Aye
There were no other petitions presented before the Board.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman DuBois adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
ATTEST:
Winston J. DuBois, Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
Board of Zoning Appeals
MINUTES
Thursday, October 22, 2020, 4:00 PM
Community Room, Salem Civic Center,
1001 Roanoke Boulevard
1. Call to Order
Chairman DuBois called the hearing to order at 4:00p.m.
A public hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held
after due and proper notice in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke
Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on October 22, 2020. Notice of such hearing was
published in the October 8, and 15 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 Steve Yost, City Attorney;
Charles Van Allman, Director of Community Development; Michele Cock, Utility Asset
Manager; and Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; and the following business was
transacted:
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mr. Frank B. Sellers, Jr., Mr. David E. Derr, Mr. F. Van Gresham, Vice-Chair
Thomas L. Copenhaver and Chairman Winston J. DuBois.
Absent: Mr. Gary L. Eanes
2. New Business
A. Minutes
Consider approval of the minutes of the January 23, 2020, Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting.
Mr. Derr motioned to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2020, meeting. Vice-
Chair Copenhaver seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Derr, Dubois, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Eanes
B. Appoint Secretary Pro-Tem
Consider appointing a Secretary Pro Tem.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver motioned to appoint Mary Ellen Wines as secretary pro-tem.
Chairman Dubois seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Derr, Dubois, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Eanes
C. Appeal Statement
Chairman DuBois explained that if anyone should disagree with the Board’s decision today,
they have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of Salem. That right to appeal
must be exercised no later than thirty (30) days following the Board’s decision by filing a
petition to the Circuit Court specifying the grounds on which they are aggrieved.
D. Floodway Variance Request
Consider the request of City of Salem, property owners, for a variance from Section
106-226.7 pertaining to development restrictions in a floodway, for the property
located at 1220 West Riverside Drive, Tax Map # 180-5-2.1. The petitioners are
requesting to construct a brick well house within the floodway. Chairman DuBois
opened the public hearing.
Mr. Van Allman, Director of Community Development of the City of Salem, 21 South
Bruffey Street, representing Larado Robinson of the City of Salem’s Water and Sewer
Department, appeared before the Board explaining that all the requirements to grant a
variance will be met.
1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by
encroachments. There will be no increased flood heights or velocities caused by the
construction of the well house. The area of construction will be offset by the removal
of like fill within the channel. Please see the provided map.
2. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury
of others. This is an enclosed brick well house so there will not be any loose
materials to be affected by flood waters.
3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to
prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. This is a well house for a
below ground well. Any pipe system will be enclosed by the brick structure which
will not allow the water supply system to be contaminated.
4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the individual owners. The well location is a natural
occurrence and not a location of choice. It is where it is, and the City is prepared for
any damage that could occur. The benefits of the additional water during drought
would be far greater than potential damage during a flood.
5. The important of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. In
2015 the Department off Environmental Quality required modifications to the City’s
River Water Intake Permit. These modifications will restrict the allowable water
withdrawal from the river. During drought conditions this could have a detrimental
affect on the available water for consumers. This additional well house will help
offset this reduction.
6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location and a location within a
floodplain district. From the City’s search of additional water sources this site was
selected as one of two sites that combined, would be able to provide the additional
needed water resources.
7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development anticipated in the
foreseeable future. There is an industrial park directly to the south of this proposed
site as well as another well house directly across Riverside Drive.
8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for the area. The comprehensive plan requires proper
development in the floodplain. This proposal meets those requirements by removing
the amount of fill within the channel.
9. The safety access to the property by ordinary and emergency vehicles in times of
flood. Access to the property could be obtained from Southside Drive if needed.
10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the
floodwaters expected at the site. After construction and the removal of fill is
completed this well house will have no effect on heights, velocity, duration, rate of
rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters.
11. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this division. No other
pertinent factors are associated with this request.
Chairman DuBois inquired if there was anyone else to speak on this item. Hearing none, the
public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GRESHAM, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER
DERR, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board is of the opinion and it is accordingly so ordered that;
The request for a variance to allow the construction of a brick well house within the floodway.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Derr, Dubois, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Eanes
3. Adjournment
Chairman DuBois adjourned the meeting at 4:14p.m.
BBooaarrdd ooff ZZoonniinngg AAppppeeaallss
MINUTES
Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 4:00 PM
Community Room, Salem Civic Center,
1001 Roanoke Boulevard
1. Call to Order
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver called the hearing to order at 4:00p.m.
A public hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia,
was held after due and proper notice in the Community Room, Salem Civic
Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on
December 23, 2020. Notice of such hearing was published in the December 9,
and 16, 2020, 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.,
Interim City Attorney; Christopher Dadak, Associate Attorney; William E.
Simpson, Jr., City Engineer; and Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; and the
following business was transacted:
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mr. Frank B. Sellers, Jr., Mr. Gary L. Eanes, Mr. F. Van
Gresham, and Vice-Chair Thomas L. Copenhaver.
Absent: Mr. David E. Derr, and Chairman Winston J. DuBois
2. New Business
A. Appoint Secretary Pro-Tem
Consider appointing a Secretary Pro Tem.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver motioned to appoint Mary Ellen Wines as
secretary pro-tem. Mr. Gresham seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Eanes, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Mr. David E. Derr, and Chairman Winston J. DuBois
B. Appeal Statement
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver explained that if anyone should disagree with
the Board’s decision today, they have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court
of the City of Salem. That right to appeal must be exercised no later than
thirty (30) days following the Board’s decision by filing a petition to the
Circuit Court specifying the grounds on which they are aggrieved.
C. Floodway Variance Request
Consider the request of The Trustees of Roanoke College, property owners,
for a variance from Section 106-226.7 pertaining to development
restrictions in a floodway, for the property located at 301 Campus Lane, Tax
Map # 86-3-4. The petitioners are requesting to construct a pavilion within
the floodway.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver opened the public hearing.
Bill Martin , Manager, Landscaping and Grounds, Roanoke College, 221
Campus Lane, appeared before the Board explaining that the college has
put in four pavilions on campus as a response to the current COVID
pandemic. They would like to add a fifth pavilion in the paver area at the
end of Alumni Lane. This pavilion would continue to be used for athletic
tailgating events once COVID restrictions are lifted. The pavilion contains
eight four inches by four-inch posts. The flood height at that location is
only two and one quarter feet. If you put that in perspective, there are
light poles in that area that are much bigger than that. This pavilion would
act the same way as it will not impede the water or catch debris. The light
poles are a foot in diameter. The pavilions are upscale from a normal pole
building. It is semi-permanent as it is unsure if they will still be in place
five to ten years from now. If these pavilions are a great success than the
college will see about building something that is similar in architecture of
the campus. There are bike racks on campus that are similar to the
pavilion as well.
Mr. Sellers inquired if he had seen the creek flood in his tenure with the
school. Mr. Martin replied yes.
Mr. Sellers asked if the flood water rose to the height of the existing paver
area. Mr. Martin replied yes that the paver area is four to six inches above
the parking lot area and it has flooded several times in his fourteen years.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver asked if an engineered certified analysis of the
potential impact to the flood level had been conducted. Mr. Martin replied
yes that an email from ZMM Architects & Engineers (formerly OWPR in
Blacksburg, Virginia) had been received. He then presented it to the
Board. Vice-Chairman Copenhaver read the following email:
Email from Bill Shelton, Mr. Van Allman, We have been asked by Roanoke
College to assist them with permitting for a picnic shelter on campus and we
have been working with Mary Ellen on some questions concerning the
floodplain. She indicated that we would need to provide some
documentation concerning the structure being in the floodplain and I want to
be sure that we provide what you all need. Since the picnic shelter is open
and will be erected on an existing paver patio area, there is no earthwork
required, and therefore no “fill” in the floodplain which needs to be offset.
With that being said, can we provide a sketch showing the location of the
shelter, the details of the shelter, and a statement indicating that no fill will
be constructed with the project? Again, we want to be sure you all get the
documentation you need so any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Please feel free to give me a call to discuss. Thanks! William A. Shelton,
P.E. Civil Engineer ZMM Architects & Engineers
Mr. Sellers inquired if there were any items permanently affixed to the
paver area. Mr. Martin replied that the only permanently attached fixture
is the grill. He explained that if flooding is expected that all furniture and
equipment is moved to another area.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver inquired of Mr. Simpson if the information
provided was sufficient to satisfy that there will be no rise of water levels
in the floodplain. Mr. Simpson replied that it meets the no fill requirement
however the pavilion has eight posts that potentially could affect the
floodway. He further explained that he could not say with certainty that
this will have no effect. Mr. Simpson asked Mr. Martin if there was any
information that addressed the structure. Mr. Martin replied that since the
email at the college had been compromised, he has had no access and
thusly does not have any additional information. He further explained that
the college is the property owner of the surrounding area both upstream
and downstream.
Mr. Simpson stated that the likelihood of this structure having an affect on
flood levels is very slight or almost negligible but without the certification
from a professional engineer he could not support this statement.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver inquired if there was anyone else to speak on
this item. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Gresham stated that with his lifelong experience of this flood area that
there are more problems created from the Hawthorne Road area than would
ever be from this construction. He further stated that the open area
surrounding this site would be able to absorb what little is being added to the
floodway.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver asked if the petitioner would like a continue to
have time to be able to gather the required information before the Board
voted.
Mr. Gresham stated that the Board could place a condition on the approval
that it would be contingent upon the receipt by city staff of a no rise
certification.
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE-CHAIRMAN COPENHAVER, SECONDED BY
BOARDMEMBER GRESHAM, AND DULY CARRIED, the Board is of the
opinion and it is accordingly so ordered that.
The request for a variance to allow the construction of a pavilion within the
floodway on the condition that a certified professional engineer submits a no
rise certification to the Office of Community Development. Mr. Gresham
seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Eanes, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Mr. David E. Derr, and Chairman Winston J. DuBois
3. Adjournment
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver adjourned the meeting at 4:17p.m.
CASE NUMBER:2021-001:
APPLICANT: Mikel L. and Sheryl H. Trenor 309 Fort Lewis Blvd
STAFF
ANALYSIS
SALEM, VIRGINIA
309 Fort Lewis Blvd
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Public Hearing Date:
February 25, 2021
Community Development
Zoning Administration Division
21 South Bruffey Street
(540) 375-3036
APPLICANTS’ REQUEST
To construct a two hundred and six square foot inground pool in the
front yard.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
309 Fort Lewis Boulevard is zoned RSF, Residential Single-Family District and consists of
2.42 acres.
The house is a legal nonconforming structure as it does not meet the setback
requirements of the current zoning ordinance. It faces southeast but access is from
Fort Lewis Boulevard by a U-shaped drive that extends from the southern stem of the
lot through the parcel and exits through the northern stem of the lot.
The zoning ordinance defines front yard as a yard between the building line and the
street right-of-way extending across the full width of the lot. Therefore, the front
yard is considered the portion of the parcel from Fort Lewis Boulevard to the building
setback line (see map 2).
RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ZONING ORDINANCE
• Sec. 106-202.3. - Site development regulations.
The following are general development standards for the RSF Residential
Single-Family District. For additional, modified or more stringent standards see
article III, use and design standards.
(B) Minimum Setback Requirements.
2. Accessory Structures:
Front Yard: Behind the rear building line of the principal structure.
Side Yard: Five feet.
Rear Yard: Five feet.
APPLICANT POSITION
The Trenors are desiring to construct an in-ground pool in the left rear corner
of the house that is easily accessible from the wrap around porch with minimal
grade encumbrances. The pool is recommended by their physicians due to
progressing arthritis. The proposed location for the pool is considered to be in the
“front” yard per definition of the zoning ordinance. However, the orientation of
the house and driveway access would suggest that the pool is actually located
in the left rear yard. The Trenors are able to adjust the parcel boundaries as
necessary to keep the pool on the same parcel as their current house since they
own both parcels.
As mentioned in the application, this condition and house orientation relative
to the public road was not created by the Trenors as they were not the ones that
originally constructed the house or subsequently created the surrounding
subdivision. As such, we feel as if this “irregular” lot situation is worthy of a
variance from the zoning ordinance to allow for the construction of the
swimming pool in the location that best suits this house and parcel.
STAFF POSITION
In order to grant a variance, the Board must find that the zoning ordinance
unreasonably restricts the use of the property or there must be a hardship due to
a physical condition of the property. It is staff’s position that nothing prevents
the pool from being placed in the rear yard.
Map 1: Topography
Map 2: Depiction of yards
lo 6urtu oql to o.un oqr re ocueurpro ouruoz p lo uo4ecrlrporu roJ ssocord "il1:"j'r1X""ff::il:nT ;elceds e qonorql olqelleAP lou st uotlectldde ocueuen oql
^q
1q6nos Apeuer ro Jorlor oqr A pue r{pedo.rd eq110 uorlecurss';c 6u1uoz eql u1 eoueqr
" ro ,tpeooro qcns uo peprured osrnnleqlo lou srleql esn B u - -'-a-
A
ue se peldope aq ol uotlp;nOel ;eleue6 e 1o ol se eJnleu e OuunceJ Jo leJoue6 os;o lou st pouJec
:esJe ler A
{qteeu pue ryedord luecetpe o} }uerurrlep ler}uelsqns lo eq lou llrm ecuerre^ eq} Jo 6urgue.r6 eq1 A
nue pue q1rel poo6 u pe, nbce,"^ 0",J"",lJ5.lfl,3lu?iffi'l1ffllfr1l,HiJ:,::: i"#flHffl ;:leu oq lsnu etJoltJc Oulrvro;;o1oql osec loqlto ul
- e 'Jo lleqoq uo -to 'Aq pelsanbar uoaraql sluaueno;durr .ro {1.redo;d e o1 ,iiffit,iffiT,'ilffi:i:l e 3ut1uel3 {q drqsp'req e alelAolle ro ocueurpJo oql Jo olep anr}ceJ;o or.ll Jo orurl oql ge Apedo.rd eq} ol outle;el uolllpuoc lecrsfiqd eqt of enp drqsp.r"q'"
"1"in"lle
plno/v\ ecuerren oql Jo 6urguer6 aql leqr .z
JO
ar.t Jo asn oql lclrlsor f;qeuoseerun prno/v\ ocueurp 'Auedold
oql oJoq^ asec curcods qcee ur lr ol o"rr"t?tK sleeddy 6uluo7 Jo preog oql leql solels tueleg ;o fir
Jo qloq ro ouo lcolos pue Joptsuoc {11n1e.rec plnoqs no
:ocueppn Jot uollecltllsnf 6ugulenog sotnU
oql le pieoLl oq ll!/v\ Ilenuep ur {epuoyl lseJ eq1 {q
le pJeoLl pue possocold eq ol JapJo ut qluoru otll Jo 'srseq papoou se ue uo qluotu qceo Jo {epsinql
'tuJ
tlsnu no{ ,Jeedde Jo ocuetJen e Jol
'{eu ecueue^ v 'ocuetre^ e lol {1dde {eu no{ 'ecueurpro ouruoz oL{r Jo ,o,r,n"rit t ffrft?rl|fff; .g
'uorslcop s.rolerlslulrupv 6u;uo2 0.'to olep oqr;o sfep furqt u!r'r/l 6u111rnn u! porlt oq lsnu ;eedde eq1 'leedde ue olt] {eut nor 'rbterls'uirubv 6,jruoz'eq11o-ro,r,rep e qlr/v\ eer6esrp no4 11 .v
'ocueulpJo outuoz oql uoJJ socuetJen oztJoqlne (q 'rolergs;u;tupy ou;uo z et4l lo uorleuruJolop Jo ,uorsrcop 'lueueltnbol 'ropro uolllr^ Aue uolJs;eedde eprcep pue'reor{ (e brnlldqlne eq-1seq preog aqj .unoc lrncrc oql {q pelurodde pue llcunoc AIc ,{q fepueuruocor preoq roquour-o^ll e sl sleeddy 6uruo7 Jo preog eqr
9tt
s-tv=tddv cNtNoz Jo quvog
=tHr or Notilr=td
'odecspuel oqt olul puolq lln lood pue ocuoJ oql 'peor crlqnd aql pue uorlecol lood oLll
ueo^ leq f1lcetrp 6ur11en'rp pue ;ecled oLl] sun o luecrldde eq1 'sburllo/\Ap A;;urel e;6urs luecelpe
roqlo lle ueL{} peor ctlqnd oll} I'uoJJ JeL.lUeJ ere ;ood pesodo.rd pue ocuoprsor or11 .oN
Zeare aLll ur lladoid laqlo uo paga enrle6au p e eq ef,lJetren aql plno6 .9
'uolsl^lpqns pue peor ct;qnd oql ol loltd lol oql uo poluorJo osle sen1 ll .soJnlcnJls
&ossecce luecelpe oLil ;o firrurxord eq1 q]r^^ pourquoc 1o1 pedeqs {;re;n6e;r
oql uo osnoq
aeale eql
or4] Jo uotlelueuo
ur firado.rd raqlo Ououre
oql ol enp {yedold slr1} o} enbtun st uot}en}ls ot.ll-
uouJr.lloo lt st Jo ,Ailado.rd slql ol enbrun uoqenlts lo uotltpuof, aql sI .S
uolsl^lpqns oututolpe otll Jo uot]eoJc oq] o1 .tor.rd gt6 t ur po]cnJlsuoc se^ osnoq oql .oN
aluerr;dde aql Aq peleerr lt spM ,drqsp.req e st alaql JJ .,
'ebe qlrA suosloiv\ sllllque oql se lood eql ol ssocce oneq uec sJouoJr eqf os Aresseceu
sl asnoq oql ol esolc lood (Adeteql) eq16urcel6 'rdeteql;ood pepueuruooal seq 'rc sr;1 .sreeA ol Jo^o Jol slr.ll
Jol uolleclpot'tt 6urye1 pue {deleql lecrs{qd o16utoD uooq seq rouoJ;Jlysr}rJque oneq qloq JouoJr ssrl4 pue .Jr! .so^
'{qnn pue 'papaau st uo[ef,Urpou leqm equf,sep ,os ltih!ilge1lp tl]lty UOSJed e ,loJleqeq
H"ri:,A?,,f?ffi?:3.i;113,f?lfil,H!.1?,*:3"1*:"y1""r.'."i*,r!.p:H:r!:-u9',?91 9 ?rr9ru o^r tuessacau aoue,rp^ e sr .e 'eoeieb pue vodec rno sossocoe 1eq1 lervrenup'eql lri iieiprrri'o;i
";;;'uffir;Hi.'ii=fid t#dfir,?-rfr;jffi;-X?'j:lffit;flr#
eql sl lood oql Jol uollPcol olqelle^e {1uo eq1 'lec.red eq1 uo sbutplrnq fuossecce pue 'yodlec 'rennenup ,asnoq oq}Jo uole}ueuo oql o} enc
'pBor eql ruo4 'gl L A;eleutxo,dde sl qclq/v\ 'e6e1uot1 p'or eql soceJ osnoq oql ,o eprs uel oql pue reivrenrp oql socel esnoq oql Jo ,,1uo4,, eql
'll punoJe pelcnJlsuoc seru\ uolsl^lpqns eql eloJaq gtol ul pelcnJlsuoc se^ osnoq oql puB pedeqs {;le;n6elr st;ected oqf.sa^
2paldope sPM af,ueulplo eql uaqm luesard suorlrpuof, ;ecrsrtqd asoql aJaM 2fuessarau af,ueueA aql a)eu suolrlpuor ;ecrsAqd leqn 'os;1 2ryado.rd aql Jo suorrrpuoo lerrs{qd er.[ ol p"rt"r'iittspterl , "r;q;;i z
'palcnjlsuoc A;;eur0uo se/v\ lt se osnoq rno,o pre{ lceq oql u! polecol r{;;en1ce sr ;ood aq} ,qcns sv
'loop luoJl eql st fen'tenllp otll 6urcel loop aql eltqAA 'Joop lceq oql poJoplsuoc ueeq s4ern;e spq ui o1ls sr ;ood eql
lsoJeou ioop oql 'uolsl^lpqns oql Jol lno lnc oJo,v\ slocJed Oututofpe oql eJoJaq polcnJlsuoc sel osnoq oql .so1
buruoz oL* srMoL.r ,os;l aryadord aq1lo asne\rplJJseJ l1qeuoseerun".rrut"o'rXt|;ir:?:lr"l5"?,tf;
'fuessaoau 4; se6ed leuolllppe qteilv'a|q;ssod se {le1eldruor se suogpanb lle rorhsue eseeld
6u nno;1o; eqr .reu ueeq a^eq
",J','jif;ili,?l x]:i::l'^il:'#x;Jl?iffiTliq:;'r?"Bxi,t :f r,#f:i,i
/7
707-.oz.-\.:
/ 7A?- {?z
uorltlacl e qll/l penlorurt st qctqrrluo^ltc oqlAq pelsoddq lrrrn u6i@ e leql spuelsropun ieuotltled oql 'oslv 'uotlect;dde o^oqe-eLll ouinne;nei rirr orsr"roro Fl.,
::,lj:/,{i:3,?:ji:t-tt^1"1y::l 119s 1o
ilc orn lo ."",rolJ,o pue 'r,"ol oq} o} uo,ssrured rqe,eq | 'uorlrppe u; '1senbe.r enoqe oqr ro luo.uosruonp" p6"i|.i;iffiffi;#-;J.;l:;
,,:ul,?j
t"1.#i":liYl?^':l,Tj|:j:!l?l r {qe4our ^T
lo rsoq oLn or on4 pue ele,ncce sr (reqlo pue sdeu) peprnord sluouqcellp oqt uo pue uorlecrldde srql'uo p"rroori'r"0ffffi:,;i$;ffi;i
sletroleu poletcosse p uorlecr;dde ;o sardoc (O t.) uel
deu uorlecol Llll/,A ,1ce[old pesoOo
(sleaddyg ocueuen) lsenber rcJ uot@
tst-ryc3Hc Notlvctlddv
Ilue3 e;6urg - lpnueptsog :OSn
NO[VtltuoJNI Aluitdoud
'lood eq1 ulo4 pue ol osnoq oql ruo4 ssocce oleltltceJ ol olnlcnJls &euud ell Jo luoJl oLll sloprsuoc ocueutpJo leLlm ur rlletyed lood burtuulr/hs punorO-ur ue lo uo,15n4sroc:/v\oilv o
uoUpuoc
;ecrs{q6 ol onp drqspleg I
uorlctJlsou elqeuoseelul I
:sllelao ocuE!Je
@ :ecuelren n r"qq""o 6"l"12 t" p"dd;- ,"J
s'ilvr:to Notrvctlddv
se1y7:apol dl
s^rrq te6 oilqM egt:SSOJppe
NotrvlrttuolNtrNf cv
uroc'lcnryotlcue@roue4tu i llBtU
egrrz:opoC d
p^tg sr/he't .13 699lSSOJppe fiutll
rouerl ;tueqg 61e1;4 lOtU
. (su=runno ftdtrtny\I uol cfHcvtrv:tE Vl l r3=lHS lvNolllocv NV) 'su=lNMo Atufdoud ttv uor ruotvnJuoJNr rcvrNoc r-Nfuunc JSn
{/z
“The solutions you need…the practicality you deserve”
463 White Oak Drive
Blue Ridge, Virginia 24064
Ph: 540.537.2390
Email: integrityengpc@gmail.com
January 27, 2021
Mary Ellen Wines
Zoning Administrator
City of Salem
Salem, VA 24153
RE: Mikel & Sharyl Trenor Pool Location - Zoning Variance Request
309 Fort Lewis Blvd
Salem, VA 24153
Dear Mary-Ellen:
This letter is written to summarize the request for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals
for the construction of an inground swimming pool adjacent to the existing house at the subject
location. The Trenors own the parcels at 309 and 311 Fort Lewis Blvd. Both are zoned RSF, and are
currently utilized as single family dwellings. The house in which the Trenors live is located at 309 Fort
Lewis Blvd. This house was originally constructed in 1935 prior to the creation of the surrounding
subdivision. The parcels surrounding this house and lot were subsequently created from this larger
tract. The front of the house faces southeast as shown in the attached drawing. The left side of the
house is roughly parallel to Fort Lewis Blvd., and the paved driveway extends from the road in a
northwest direction passing in front of the house and curving around to the rear where a series of
accessory structures are located. The Trenors are desiring to construct an in-ground pool in the left rear
corner of the house that is easily accessible from the wrap around porch with minimal grade
encumbrances. The pool is recommended by their physicians due to progressing arthritis. The
proposed location for the pool is considered to be in the “front” yard per definition of the zoning
ordinance. However, the orientation of the house and driveway access would suggest that the pool is
actually located in the left rear yard. The Trenors are able to adjust the parcel boundaries as necessary
to keep the pool on the same parcel as their current house since they own both parcels.
As mentioned in the application, this condition and house orientation relative to the public road
was not created by the Trenors as they were not the ones that originally constructed the house or
subsequently created the surrounding subdivision. As such, we feel as if this “irregular” lot situation is
worthy of a variance from the zoning ordinance to allow for the construction of the swimming pool in
the location that best suits this house and parcel. I trust this information is satisfactory for your review.
Please refer to the variance request application and associated general site plan.
Sincerely,
INTEGRITY ENGINEERING, PC
Sean C. Goldsmith, PE
8.9'
±1'
19'
1
2
.
6
7
'
8.1
7
'
±1'
NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING
POOL PER NATIONAL POOL
DESIGN DWGS.
EXTEND STONE MASONRY
RETAINING WALL (<4'T) ALONG
PERIMETER OF POOL AS
NECESSARY
EXISTING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES TO REMAIN
UNCHANGED
EXIST. SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING TO REMAIN
87LF+/- ROAD FRONTAGE
TO REMAIN
30LF+/- ROAD
FRONTAGE TO
REMAIN
N
3
5
°
4
5
'
W
5
4
.
5
'
+
/
-
1
'
53
.
4
4
'
+
/
-
1
'
INSTALL FENCING (NOT
SHOWN) AROUND POOL TO
SATISFY BUILDING AND
ZONING REQUIREMENTS
1749sf 937sf±1sf AREA TO
BE CONVEYED FROM
PARCEL 130-2-30 TO
PARCEL 130-2-29
NEW PROPERTY LINE
ADJUSTMENTS TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL CLEARANCE TO
NEW POOL; RECORD
ACTUAL BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS ON PLAT
EXIST. PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
N
3
5
°
4
5
'
W
N
3
5
°
4
5
'
W
130-2-29
EX. AREA=2.42ac
NEW AREA=2.46ac
130-2-30
EX. AREA=0.504ac
NEW AREA=0.464ac
173
.
5
'
EXISTING PAVED
DRIVEWAY & PARKING
EX. UG ELEC. TO REMAIN
PATIO
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS NOTES:
1)WORK INDICATED ON THIS PLAN SHEET INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW IN-GROUND
SWIMMING POOL ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EXISTING DWELLING. THE
LOCATION OF THE POOL WILL REQUIRE A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT, WHICH SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND RECORDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. THE LOT IS
IRREGULAR SHAPED SUCH THAT IN GROUND POOL WILL BE LOCATED IN YARD SPACE, BUT
SHALL STILL COMPLY WITH CURRENT ZONING AS A YARD IS DEFINED AS "A REQUIRED OPEN
SPACE ON A LOT, UNOCCUPIED AND UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE GROUND UPWARD".
2)BOTH MODIFIED PARCELS WILL REMAIN COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE.
3)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT MISS UTILITY PRIOR TO EXCAVATION TO LOCATE ALL
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN VICINITY OF POOL.
4)LANDSCAPING AND FENCING ORIENTATION/SELECTION SHALL BE COORDINATED BETWEEN
OWNER AND CONTRACTOR, BUT SHALL COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE AND ZONING
ORDINANCE.
5)EXISTING HOUSE AND WRAP-AROUND PORCH SHALL REMAIN.
GENERAL ZONING NOTES FOR IMPROVEMENTS:
PARCEL TAX ID:130-2-29 (IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT)
OWNER:MIKEL & SHERYL TRENOR
ZONING:RSF
WATER & SEWER:PUBLIC
EXIST. LOT AREA:2.42AC
NEW LOT AREA:2.46AC (0.2067AC REQ'D.)
FRONTAGE:APPROX. 87'+30' = 137' (UNCHANGED)
FRONT YARD:APPROX. 173'
PARCEL TAX ID:130-2-30 (STANDARD SHAPED LOT)
OWNER:MIKEL & SHERYL TRENOR
ZONING:RSF
WATER & SEWER:PUBLIC
EXIST. LOT AREA:0.504AC
NEW LOT AREA:0.464AC (0.2067AC REQ'D.)
FRONTAGE:APPROX. 120' (UNCHANGED)
FRONT YARD:APPROX. 36'
IN
T
E
G
R
I
T
Y
Revisions By Date
1"=30'
1/20/2021
SCG
SCG
20170
C1
PO
O
L
&
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
MI
K
E
L
&
S
H
E
R
Y
L
T
R
E
N
O
R
30
9
F
O
R
T
L
E
W
I
S
B
L
V
D
.
SA
L
E
M
,
V
A
Bl
u
e
R
i
d
g
e
,
V
A
2
4
0
6
4
Ph
:
(
5
4
0
)
5
3
7
-
2
3
9
0
Em
a
i
l
:
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
e
n
g
p
c
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Sheet No.
Project No.:
Scale:
Date:
Design By:
CAD By:
Checked By:
46
3
W
h
i
t
e
O
a
k
D
r
i
v
e
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
1/20/21
GENERAL SITE PLAN
1"=30'
12'-8"
9'
R5'
R6
'
3112 MELROSE AVENUE, NW ROANOKE, VA 24017 540-345-7665 FAX: 540-343-5240
OF
ROANOKE
INC.
TRENOR RESIDENCE
4'9'7'
20'
POOL SECTION
POOL DIMENSION LAYOUT
DECKING BY OTHERS
TYPICAL WALL SECTION
No. 4 BAR 12" O.C.E.W.
6" CONCRETE FLOOR (3500 PSI)
6" GUNITE WALL (4000+ PSI)
1/2" PLASTER
EXPANSION JOINT
8" WATERLINE TILE
12" COPING
3'
-
6
"
4'
-
6
"
POOL INFORMATION
AREA:
VOLUME:
PERIMETER:54 FT.
4,000 GALLONS
206 SQ. FT.
EXISTING WALL
MODIFIED AND
EXTENDED BY OTHERS
RAISED POOL WALL
WITH (2) WATERFALLS
VENEERED BY OTHERS
BENCH SEAT
SUNSHELF
WITH STEPS
7
'
R4'
R12
'
EXISTING PORCH
TREES
22'
THIS NUMBER CAN BE 20'-22'
TO BE ROUGHLY 8'-10' AWAY
FROM ELECTRICAL LINES
UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL
LINES
Department of Community Development
Mary Ellen H. Wines, Zoning Administrator
21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, Virginia 24153, (540) 375-3032, mewines@salemva.gov
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of
Salem, Virginia will hold a public hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 15.2-
2204 and 15.2-2309 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, on February 25, 2021, at 4:00 p.m.
in the Community Room of the Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, in the City of
Salem, Virginia, to consider the following applications.
Request of Mikel L. and Sheryl H. Trenor, property owners, for a variance from
Section 106-202.3(B)(2), minimum setback requirements, of the Code of the City of
Salem, to allow the construction of a two hundred and six square foot inground pool
located at 309 Fort Lewis Boulevard (Tax Map # 130-2-29). Section 106-202.3(B)(2)
states that accessory structures shall be placed behind the rear building line of the
principal structure. The petitioners are therefore requesting a variance to allow the
construction of a two hundred and six square foot inground pool in the front yard.
At this hearing, all parties in interest will be given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence,
and show cause why such requests should or should not be granted. For additional information,
contact the Office of the Zoning Administrator, 21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, Virginia (Phone
375-3032).
THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM
BY: Mary Ellen H. Wines, CZA, CFM
Zoning Administrator
(Please publish in the 2-11-2021 and 2-18-2021 issues of the “Salem Times Register”. Please
send statement to Zoning Administrator, P. O. Box 869, 21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, Virginia
24153).
2020
MEMBERS:
Mr. Winston J. DuBois,
Chairman
Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver,
Vice -Chairman
Mr. F. Van Gresham,
Mr. David E. Derr
Mr. Gary L. Eanes
ALTERNATE MEMBERS:
Mr. Frank B. Sellers, Jr.
Vacant Position
Vacant Position
STAFF:
Mary Ellen H. Wines,
Zoning Administrator
Jim H. Guynn, Jr.
Interim City Attorney
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr.,
Community Development Director
2020
Section 15.2-2308 of the Code of Virginia, as amended states that every locality that has enacted or
enacts a zoning ordinance pursuant to this chapter or prior enabling laws, shall establish a board of
zoning appeals by the circuit court for the locality. Their terms of office shall be for five years each.
Appointments to fill vacancies shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Members may be
reappointed to succeed themselves. Members of the board shall hold no other public office in the
locality except that one may be a member of the local planning commission. A member whose term
expires shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and qualifies. At the request of the
local governing body, the circuit court for any other locality may appoint not more than three
alternates to the board of zoning appeals.
2020
Section 106-528 of The Code of the City of
Salem states that the Salem Board of Zoning
Appeals shall consist of five members, and up
to three alternates who shall be appointed by
the Circuit Court.
2020
In accordance with Section 106-528.1 of The Code of the City of Salem, the powers and duties of the
Board are as follows:
(A)The BZA shall have the power and duty to hear and decide appeals from any written order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by any administrative officer in the administration or
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
(B)The BZA shall have the power and duty to authorize upon appeal or original application in specific
cases a variance from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest, when,
owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of this chapter will result in unnecessary hardship.
(C)The BZA shall have the power and duty to hear and decide appeals from any written decision of the
administrator.
(D)The BZA shall have the power and duty to hear and decide applications for interpretation of the
official zoning map where the administrator believes there is uncertainty as to the location of a district
boundary.
2020
January 23,2020:The Board granted the request of Richard C.and Robyn A.Goodpasture,property
owners,for a variance from Section 106-202.3(B)(2),minimum setback requirements,of the Code of the
City of Salem,to allow the construction of a 14’x 20’inground pool/spa located at 225 Northern Trail (Tax
Map #10-1-1.7).Section 106-202.3(B)(2)states that accessory structures shall be placed behind the rear
building line of the principal structure.The petitioners are therefore requesting a variance to allow the
construction of a 14’x 20’inground pool/spa in the front yard.
October 22,2020:The Board granted the request of the City of Salem,property owners,for a variance
from Section 106-226.7 pertaining to development restrictions in a floodway,for the property located at
1220 West Riverside Drive,Tax Map #180-5-2.1.The petitioners are requesting to construct a brick well
house within the floodway.
December 23,2020:The Board granted the request of The Trustees of Roanoke College,property owners,
for a variance from Section 106-226.7 pertaining to development restrictions in a floodway,for the
property located at 301 Campus Lane,Tax Map #86-3-4.The petitioners are requesting to construct a
pavilion within the floodway.
2020
MEMBERS:
Mr. Winston J. DuBois,
Chairman
Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver,
Vice -Chairman
Mr. F. Van Gresham
Mr. David E. Derr
Mr. Gary L. Eanes
ALTERNATE MEMBERS:
Mr. Frank B. Sellers, Jr.
Vacant Position
Vacant Position
2 of 3 meetings
3 of 3 meetings
3 of 3 meetings
1 of 3 meetings
2 of 3 meetings
3 of 3 meetings
2020
Appeals
Variances
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
1
4 4
6
3
Applications
Appeals Variances
2020
40%
25%
20%
15%
Percentage of Variance Requests
Accessory structures in side or rear yard Floodplain Side Setback Rear Setback
2020
This report is respectfully submitted
pursuant to Section 15.2-2308(C) of the
Code of Virginia.
2020