HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/26/2021 - Zoning Appeal - Agenda -Board of Zoning Appeals
AGENDA
Thursday, August 26, 2021, 4:00 P M
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
1.C all to Order
2.C onsent Agenda
A.Minutes
C onsider approval of the minutes of the May 27, 2021, meeting.
3.New Business
A.Variance Request
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Matthew and Kathryn C ookston, property
owners, for a variance from Section 106-202.3(B)(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. T he 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(B)(1)
states that a side-yard setback of ten percent (8.2 feet) and a 25 feet rear-yard setback is
required.
4.Adjournment
Board of Zoning Appeals
MINUTES Thursday, May 27, 2021, 4:00 PM Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard
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 the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001
Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on May 27, 2021. Notice of such
hearing was published in the May 13, and 20, 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; Joshua L. Pratt, Civil Engineer II; Krystal M. Graves, Permit Technician; and Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; and the following business was
transacted:
Vice-Chair Copenhaver called the hearing to order at 4:01p.m.
Absent: Derr, Dubois, Eanes A. Secretary Pro-Tem Consider appointing Krystal Graves as Secretary Pro-Tem. Thomas Copenhaver motioned consider appointing Krystal M. Graves as secretary pro-
tem. F. Van Gresham seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Derr, Dubois, Eanes B. Roll Call Vice-Chairman Copenhaver continued the meeting until the arrival of the City Attorney.
Mr. Guynn arrived and Vice-Chairman Copenhaver reopened the meeting at 4:10p.m.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver informed the audience that should anyone disagree with the
Board's decision shall 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.
Absent: Derr, Dubois, Eanes
2. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes Consider approval of the minutes of the February 25, and April 22, 2021, meetings.
Frank B. Sellers, Jr. motioned consider approval of the minutes of the February 25, and
April 22, 2021, meetings. Thomas Copenhaver seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Derr, Dubois, Eanes
3. New Business
A. Variance Request
Hold public hearing to consider the request of David D. Arp, property owner, for a
variance from Section 106-202.3(B)(1) and (2) pertaining to site development
regulations, for the property located at 1416 North Mill Road, Tax Map # 34-3-8. The
petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a shed in the side yard, a one-foot variance of
side-yard setback for the shed and a variance of four and a quarter foot for an
engineered panel cover over the driveway. Secretary Graves stated that one neighbor had contacted the City voicing her
approval of the variance request.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver inquired to the location of said neighbor in relation to the
property. Ms. Wines responded that she was across North Mill Lane and to the left.
Vice-Chairman Copenhaver asked if the Board members had an opportunity to view the
correspondence submitted regarding this matter and to visit the property. The Board
answered affirmatively.
Mr. David Arp, property owner of 1416 North Mill Road appeared before the Board
stating that the reason for the variance request is that he requested a cover be built over
his building, not a shed. When that was requested through Mary Ellen of the Community
Development Department it was brought up that there was a zoning law infraction which
neither my better half nor I knew a thing about. We can't even understand why zoning
would be on personal property to begin with but there it is, and we would like an
explanation exactly what that zoning law that is for if that's possible, just so we're all
understanding each other what infraction is going on here.
Ms. Wines responded that in residential districts, accessory structures, such as sheds, detached garages, detached carports are required to be in the rear yard only not in the side yard beside the homes. When the permit application was submitted for the cover over the driveway, it became apparent that you had a shed in the side yard and the result is a variance is required to allow the shed. Even though the shed has been in place a number
of years and even replaced, a permit was never requested.
Mr. Arp responded that the logic of that kind of sounds flawed to him in that if you have
a side yard it was let's just say forty feet long you still could not have anything that side
yard.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver stated the ordinance was enacted by the City of Salem, City
Council, and there is created this process you are using today to allow homeowners
to request a variance to that ordinance because they feel that the ordinance may not
be applicable in such case or the property unique.
Mr. Arp replied that is a good thing that he was just trying to get an understanding of
why the requirement was there to begin with, for the continuity of the neighborhood
correct? Having said that, and even though they are not here, he personally met with the
neighbors whose property is immediately adjacent to the property that he is right up
against the location of the shed and they both had absolutely no issues.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver clarified that those would be the two houses that front
Kesler Mill Road in which their back yard abuts the shed in question.
Mr. Arp further clarified that both those properties have gigantic buildings that dwarf
his. It's lot two and lot one on Kesler Mill. Their property buts up against my property on
the east side. He also met with the neighbor on the other side and all three had no issue
with this request. They did not understand why this process was necessary. Both he and
his wife are in their late 60s and they just recently retired. They have been planning this
retirement and building this building to do woodworking hobby for several years. It is on
a nice flat hard surface and nowhere else on the property is flat. His wife has macular
degeneration which is causing her to lose her sight and he fell and broke his back a few
years ago and he does not bend or walk so good, and this was a perfect area for that
building. Even if he knew about this zoning law, and he did not, he would still be
standing there today asking for a variance because that is the perfect place for their shop.
They are using it for a woodworking and hobbies, and they cannot possibly foresee
moving it.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired of the Board if there were any further questions.
Board member Gresham stated that in reading through all the information a very
important point has been brought to the Board's attention. It is regarding health situations
which is very important in granting variances. Heath situations can be an important factor
regarding the granting of variances and the Board will take all of the information into
consideration.
Mr. Arp responded that they both are proud of their little building they are proud of
some of the things they have been producing for their kids and grandkids and they want
to continue to do that.
Board member Gresham stated that as far as he is concerned after visiting the site and
seeing that the neighbor's backyard is the petitioner's side yard and that what the
petitioners are doing visually looks better even though the neighbors are within the
zoning laws.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired if it was the petitioner's intent to maintain the six-foot
privacy fence.
Mr. Arp responded affirmatively that he had a great deal of money wrapped up in that
building so they have to keep that fence there and locked.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver asked if there was any correspondence related to this
request.
Ms. Wines replied negatively.
Mr. Sellers inquired as to the height of the proposed structure over the driveway.
Mr. Arp responded that it would taper down from one side, but it would be eight or
nine feet high. Just enough to get to the building and open the doors.
Vice-Chair Copenhaver asked if there was anyone else there to speak on this matter.
Pat Gray appeared before the Board stating that she lives with Mr. Arp at 1416 North Mill Road, and they have been together for twenty-two years. She wanted to let the Board know that she has macular degeneration, and it is a very bad disease, and she has it in both eyes. She had just gotten over and infection. She had hurt her knee just this week walking in the yard looking at her flowers, so she really needs a stable base to walk. She has to use a walking stick to walk into the yard so she would appreciate it if the Board could leave the building where it is and add the cover.
Vice-Chair asked if anyone else wanted to speak on the matter and hearing none,
closed the public hearing.
F. Van Gresham motioned hold public hearing to consider the request of David D. Arp,
property owner, for a variance from Section 106-202.3(B)(1) and (2) pertaining to site
development regulations, for the property located at 1416 North Mill Road, Tax Map #
34 3 8. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a shed in the side yard, a one-foot
variance of side-yard setback for the shed and a variance of four and a quarter foot for an
engineered panel cover over the driveway. Frank B. Sellers, Jr. seconded the motion.
Ayes: Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers, Jr.
Absent: Derr, Dubois, Eanes
Vice-Chair Copenhaver made comment that in this case of the shed that the sheds on the
adjacent properties extend further down their driveway than the one in question.
(1) The decision of the Zoning Administrator for the City of Salem in refusing to issue a
permit to David D. Arp to allow a shed in the side yard, a one-foot variance of side-yard
setback for the shed and a variance of four and a quarter foot for an engineered panel
cover over the driveway at 1416 North Bill Road, Tax Map # 34-3-8, is hereby affirmed.
(2) Inasmuch as Mr. Arp provided acceptable evidence and no other parties in interest
appeared before the Board and objected to the violation of the Zoning Ordinance, the
variation from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance requested in the application of Mr.
David D. Arp should be, and the same is, hereby granted in accordance with the
application presented at this meeting, and subsequently the spirit of the ordinance will be
observed and substantial justice done, and such variation will not be contrary to the
public interest.
(3) The Building Official is, therefore, authorized and directed to issue a permit to the
applicant for the shed and the construction of an engineered panel cover over the
driveway at 1416 North Mill Road, in accordance with the application submitted to the Board at this meeting.
(4) The Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals is hereby instructed to certify a
copy of this order to Mr. Arp and to Troy Loving, Building Official of the City of
Salem.
4. Adjournment
Vice-Chair Copenhaver adjourned the meeting at 4:28p.m.
ATTEST: _______________________________________
Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver, Vice-Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
CASE NUMBER:2021-004:
APPLICANTS: Matthew & Kathryn Cookston, 436 Westland Street
STAFF
ANALYSIS
SALEM, VIRGINIA
436 Westland Street
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Public Hearing Date:
August 26, 2021
Community Development
Zoning Administration
Division
21 South Bruffey Street
(540) 375-3032
APPLICANTS’ REQUEST
The request for a variance from Section 106-202.3(B)(1) of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to site development regulations. 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
436 Westland Street is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The house is a legal conforming
structure as it does meet the requirements of the current zoning ordinance. The lot in which
the house sits, is a legal non-conforming lot as it does not meet the required lot width. When
the neighborhood was originally subdivided in 1956 the alley along the east side of the
property was created to allow access to the public park.
The house is a 2,039 square foot multi-level home with three bedrooms and two baths. The
original carport was enclosed in 2002.
There are no topography issues on this site.
The zoning ordinance requires a 10% of the lot width as the side-yard setback and 25 feet for
the rear yard setback. In this case the required side yard is 8.2 feet. The petitioner is
requesting to build an addition into the side yard to expand a family room and add a main
level bath. This addition will extend to the side property line.
There are three areas of concern. 1. Fire walls will be required and have been discussed with
the applicant. 2. The undeveloped alley that is directly adjacent to the proposed addition is
used for pedestrian traffic to access the public park. 3. This situation is not unique as there
are 5 other properties in the neighborhood in the same situation. (See neighborhood view)
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.
1. Principal Structure:
Front Yard: 25 feet, if right-of-way is 50 feet or greater in width; 50 feet from the
centerline of any right-of-way less than 50 feet in width. However, if an adjoining
lot is developed, no principal structure shall be required to have a front yard
greater than that observed by an existing building on an adjoining lot.
Side Yard: Any side yard shall be a minimum of ten percent of lot width.
However, under no circumstances shall either side yard be required to exceed 25
feet.
Rear Yard: 25 feet.
APPLICANT POSITION
When we viewed the home, we noticed that there was no main level bathroom,
something that we desperately need with our aging parents. We also noticed that the
family room was small, and with three children, their cousins also in Salem, not to
mention all their friends, we knew we would need a larger space for them. However, even
lacking those two crucial spaces, we couldn't pass up the opportunity to move into such
an amazing neighborhood, with a park literally in the backyard for our children.
Our intention from the moment we purchased was to add an addition onto our home
in the spring of 2021. We met with contractors less than a month after moving in,
reviewed what we thought were the property lines, designed an addition, and put our
deposit down, all before the end of 2020. Imagine our shock when it came time to turn
everything in in May of 2021, and we found out that our fence, and the city's fence
marking the park entrance, were both wrong, and we had about 10ft less than we thought
on the side of our yard.
AERIAL VIEW OF PROPERTY
NEIGHBORHOOD VIEW OF PROPERTY
Revisions By Date
Checked By:
CAD By:
Design By:
Date:
Scale:
Comm. No.:
Sheet No.
AS SHOWN
7-30-21
MSP
MSP
21073
S1
FR
A
M
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
CO
O
K
S
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
SA
L
E
M
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
SM
L
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
8
0
5
P
a
t
t
i
R
o
a
d
,
R
o
c
k
y
M
o
u
n
t
,
V
A
2
4
1
5
1
Da
l
e
v
i
l
l
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
3
0
6
W
e
s
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
,
D
a
l
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
V
A
2
4
0
8
3
Ma
i
l
:
P
.
O
.
B
o
x
1
2
0
6
2
,
R
o
a
n
o
k
e
,
V
A
2
4
0
2
2
(5
4
0
)
3
4
5
-
5
5
5
5
Em
a
i
l
:
i
n
f
o
@
c
o
v
e
n
a
n
t
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
Revisions By Date
Checked By:
CAD By:
Design By:
Date:
Scale:
Comm. No.:
Sheet No.
AS SHOWN
8-10-21
MSP
MSP
21073
C1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
CO
O
K
S
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
SA
L
E
M
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
SM
L
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
8
0
5
P
a
t
t
i
R
o
a
d
,
R
o
c
k
y
M
o
u
n
t
,
V
A
2
4
1
5
1
Da
l
e
v
i
l
l
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
:
3
0
6
W
e
s
l
e
y
R
o
a
d
,
D
a
l
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
V
A
2
4
0
8
3
Ma
i
l
:
P
.
O
.
B
o
x
1
2
0
6
2
,
R
o
a
n
o
k
e
,
V
A
2
4
0
2
2
(5
4
0
)
3
4
5
-
5
5
5
5
Em
a
i
l
:
i
n
f
o
@
c
o
v
e
n
a
n
t
e
n
g
.
c
o
m