Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/2019 - Zoning Appeal - Minutes -Board of Zoning Appeals MINUTES Thursday, March 28, 2019, 4:00 PM City Hall, Council Chambers, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 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 Council Chambers, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on March 28, 2019. Notice of such hearing was published in the March 14, and 21, 2019, 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 Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney; Charles Van Allman, Director of Community Development; and Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; and the following business was transacted: Chairman Dubois called the hearing to order at 4:02 p.m. 2. Roll Call called roll. Captain Copenhaver, present. Mr. Eanes, here. Mr. Derr here. Vice Chairman Gresham, here. Chairman Dubois here. 3. Disclaimer 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. Chairman DuBois asked if everyone understood, if not ask a question when you get up to speak. 4. New Business 1. Variance Request Consider the request of Linda D. Durrill, property owner, for a variance from Section 106- 202.3(B)(1), minimum setback requirements, of the Code of the City of Salem, to allow the construction of an addition and deck in the rear yard of 108 Academy Street (Tax Map # 105-3-10). Section 106-202.3(B)(1) states that the rear setback shall be twenty-five feet(25’). The petitioner is therefore requesting a variance of six feet seven tenths (6.7’) of rear setback. Chairman Dubois asked if there was any correspondence on this matter. There were none. Chairman Dubois asked the petitioner to please approach the podium and state their name, address, and how they are associated with the case. Linda Durrill, owner of the property at 108 Academy Street, asked for the request to add an addition on to the back of her house. Chairman Dubois told Ms. Durrill she may have someone join her at the podium if she would like. Kenny Ford, owner of K&J Properties, a construction company in Montgomery County. He would be the contractor of this job. Ms. Durrill reached out to this company to do the addition. Mr. Ford stated he spoke with Ms. Wines in the Zoning office of the City of Salem. The contractor thought they were ok with the twenty feet (20’) of setback and then they learned that they learned they were encroaching into the back part of the property line. The construction company reduced that twenty feet (20’) down to fourteen feet (14’) and they were still encroaching. But doing the fourteen (14’) it didn’t give Ms. Durrill the space she needed in her home to accommodate everyone. Therefore the construction company went back to twenty foot (20”) of setback since a request for more footage would have to go in front of the board. This addition would afford Ms. Durrill the opportunity to get an additional bathroom and an additional bedroom to accommodate her and her four (4) children. Chairman Dubois asked that with this variance how many extra feet are being asked for. Kenny Ford stated that six feet and 7 tenths (6.7’) is actually the amount of space they need. Chairman Dubois questioned if that would be from the end of the property line. Chairman Dubois asked if the members had a chance to view the property. 4:04:08 asked Mr. Ford to look in the folder at the very last page with the fold out. It appears that the addition is 20 feet (20’) in that picture and then if you go back a couple of pages and look at the architect’s drawing, it appears that it is eighteen feet ten inches (18.10’) Captain Copenhaver wanted clarification as to what the six feet seven tenths (6.7’) was for? Kenny Ford said that the six foot seven tenths (6.7’) was based on the 20 foot (20’) addition not the eighteen feet ten inches (18.10’). The reason the architect’s drawing said eighteen feet ten inches (18.10’) is because anything including the overhang gets into the setbacks. That is why Ms. Durrill is requesting six feet seven tenths (6.7’) to clear the setback requirements. Captain Copenhaver stated with clarity that the twenty feet (20’) would include the overhang. Chairman Dubois asked if there was going to be a deck added also. Ms. Durrill answered yes. Where the kitchen comes around will adjoin to the deck. Mr. Ford told council that the deck will not encroach into the setbacks. Chairman Dubois asked if there were any more questions. Steve Bellinger, property manager for Salem Baptist Church, the church owns the vacant lot right behind 108 Academy St. The church sold that property to Ms. Durrill in 2017. On behalf of the elders, the pastor, and himself have no concerns with Mr.Durrill encroaching on the vacant lot. Captain Copenhaver wanted to know if there were any future plans for the vacant lot the church owns that backs up to Ms. Durrill’s. The answer was no. Chairman Dubois asked if there were any other questions or statements that anyone wanted to say/ No response was given. Chairman Dubois request a motion Vice Chairman Gresham made a motion to grant the variance. Captain Copenhaver seconded the motion. Roll called Captain Copenhaver yes. Mr. Eanes aye. Mr. Derr aye. Vice Chairman Gresham aye. Chairman Dubois aye. Chairman Dubois stated the variance had been granted. Chairman Dubois asks for the next case to be called. 2. Variance Request Consider the request of Daniel and Deborah Ullmer, 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 placement of a storage shed at 708 Bradford Circle (Tax Map # 85-4-4.5). Section 106-202.3(B)(2) states that accessory structures shall be placed behind the rear building line of the principal structure. The petitioner is therefore requesting a variance to allow the placement of an 8’x10’ storage shed in the side yard. Chairman Dubois inquired as to any correspondence that was received and the answer was no. He then asked if the petitioner would please approach the podium. Dan Ullmer, property owner, at 708 Bradford Circle. He was asking for the variance for the shed on the side of the house. The materials show that because of the slope of the yard behind the home and the way the house is angled on the cul de sac it doesn’t leave an area for placing the shed other than the side of the house. Even placing the shed on the side of the house it would be well away from the road. Neighbors were contacted to make sure she was okay with the placement of the shed. The neighbor even helped with the deciding of the color of the shed. Chairman Dubois asked if everyone had a chance to drive by the property. Then opened up for discussion. Captain Copehaver commented on how nice the presentation, house and yard were. 4:09:41 asked the owner if any thought had been given during the planning process to recess the shed back into the bank itself as an option to keeping it behind the house. Dan Ullmer answered that there were two (2) problems with that. One, is raising it off the ground and it would be hard to get into. Using a ramp could be a solution, but there is quite a bit of water that comes down the hill. The property sits below the property behind it that has a pool and there is quite a bit of water that slides down the hill and it would wash right into the footings. 4:10:17 wanted to know if the petitioner had constructed the retaining wall in the back or was it already done. Dan Ullmer answered that the retaining wall was already there when they purchased the house. Chairman Dubois said that there is a little foundation for the building in the back now; it looked like a saw something. Dan Ullmer anwered that little foundation was placed before being aware of the fact a variance would be needed. Chairman Dubois asked if that would be the actual location of the shed if the variance was approved. Dan Ullmer affirmed the location. That foundation is about ten by thirteen (10’x13’) it is larger than the actual shed. It will be filled with gravel to support it. 4:10:55 wanted to know if the front of the shed be behind your neighbors’ back of their house or will extend into the neighbor’s side yard. Dan Ullmer the block is actually behind the neighbor’s back wall. If this shed was on the neighbor’s property it would pass the ordinance. Chairman Dubois states there is a white building behind the petitioners’ house wanting to know if that is another building that belongs to this property. Dan Ullmer states that building belongs to another house in another subdivision that backs up to the cul de sac. That shed was already there when the purchase of the house was made. Chairman Dubois inquired if the City had anything to offer. Dan Ullmer added that the shed is made of very high quality built shed and keeping with the neighborhood and the home. The siding will be colored similar to the siding on the home. It is a small shed eight by ten (8’x10’). It shouldn’t be obtrusive or bothersome to anybody. Should add value to the yard and to the home. The petitioner stated that he is taking every step to make sure it stays that way by providing a proper foundation and the necessary gravel. The gravel was recommended by Pine Creek Structures, where the shed is being built. Chairman Dubois stated that he walked in the back of the property and felt that if the neighbor had no problem with why should he. 4:14 said it might help block that other building behind you. Chairman Dubois asked for a motion Vice Chairman Gresham so move to be accepted. Captain Copenhaver second the motion Roll called Captain Copenhaver yes. Mr. Eanes aye. Mr. Derr aye. Vice Chairman Gresham aye. Chairman Dubois aye. Chairman Dubois states the variance request is approved. Chairman Dubois asked if there was any old or no business. None was stated. Chairman Dubois adjourned the meeting at 4:15 pm.