Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2018 - Zoning Appeal - Minutes -- i - October 18, 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals October 18, 2018 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 October 18, 2018. Notice of such hearing was published in the Salem Times Register, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City. The Board, constituting a legal quorum presided with; Steve Yost, City Attorney; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., City Engineer, Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; Rita Wygal, Secretary and the following business was transacted: CALL TO ORDER Chairman DuBois called the hearing to order at 4:00p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Winston J. DuBois, Vice-Chairman F. Van Gresham, and Boardmembers David E. Derr, Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver and Frank B. Sellers, Jr. DECLARATION OF APPEAL Chairman DuBois stated that if anyone disagrees with the Board’s decision they have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of Salem. You must exercise your right to appeal within thirty days following the Board’s decision by filing a petition to the Circuit Court specifying the grounds on which you are aggrieved. PUBLIC HEARINGS Request of Anne O. Wetzork, property owner, 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 an 18’ x 21’ detached carport at 523 Turner Road (Tax Map # 10012). 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 the carport in the side yard. WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if there had been any correspondence; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines responded negatively; and WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois inquired if the Board had an opportunity to view the property; and WHEREAS, all Boardmembers responded affirmatively; and WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked the petitioner to approach the podium and state their name, address and association with the request; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Anne Obenchain Wetzork appeared before the Board stating that she is the owner of the property 523 Turner Road. She stated that she relocated from Florida to Salem the first part of April after the loss of her husband. She stated she was born in Roanoke and has family here. At the time, she was looking for a home they were few and far between. She wanted a home with a garage and could not find one. She had to settle for the property on Turner Road. It has a garage presently, but it is seventy-six years old and in disrepair. It is not worth remodeling even if she had the money to do so. She also does not have the funds to demolish the structure. After living in the home for about a month, she started thinking about coverage for her car, which is her second largest investment outside of her home, and she was looking for more protection for the automobile and for convenience. She started noticing detached carports all around the City at private homes, businesses and even on some City property. She thought that seemed to be a viable alternative and conducted some research. - ii - October 18, 2018 She ended up on Melrose at a company associated with Carolina Carports. (She presented a picture of the carport to the Board.) First part of August she placed a down payment on the regular carport and she was very careful to choose the color of the roofing that would be acceptable to the house as she was trying to make it look as good as she could. The young lady that sold her the carport mentioned requiring a permit for the placement. Mrs. Wetzork added that the smallest city she has lived in was Charlottesville about thirty years ago and she lived in the country. She thought she was doing the right thing in trying to get a permit. When she attempted to get a building permit for the carport she was informed of the issues and ultimately filed for a variance. She further explained that if you look at the map and look at the pictures, the home is sitting very far back from the road and the house provides quite a bit of privacy on that side of the home because on the southside of the house is a large group of trees that are forty – fifty feet tall that belong to the neighbors. The house on the other side is blocked due to her home. The only other neighbor that could see the carport area is directly across the street. The proposed location is in front of the existing garage. She fully intends to paint the existing garage next spring when she has the funds available to do so. There is plenty of room to the front of the existing garage. She noted that Mr. Sellers had been to the property and measured and there is more than enough room. She is asking to be allowed to place the carport in the side yard. She only had one neighbor stop to ask the situation and he was not opposed to it; and WHEREAS, Boardmember Derr inquired that Mrs. Wetzork has the funds available to invest in the structure for her car but cannot afford to tear down the existing garage; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wetzork replied that was correct. The carport would cost around fifteen hundred dollars but the demolition of the garage would be a lot more. The existing garage is not stable enough to put new doors and make into a garage. It is very old; and WHEREAS, Boardmember Derr asked what would happen when the structure itself starts to lean or falls down; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wetzork responded that the structure is concrete and according to the home inspector, the only issue was the roof was dipping. The company that renovated the house last year did put new shingles on it. Eventually the garage will have to come down but at this point and time, she just cannot do it. She had to invest a lot of money into the home as it was not renovated properly and she has had to do a lot of work; and WHEREAS, Boardmember Derr stated that Mrs. Wetzork had mentioned the trees on one side and that fact that the house sits far back off the road. He explained that in granting a variance it is a permanent order that continues with the property and changes the structure of a neighborhood. He stated it is a nice neighborhood relatively uniform throughout and the houses are up kept; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wetzork replied that there is a home that has a detached carport and there is one down the street. There is a home that has enough junk on the front porch the set the house on fire. The man next door to her runs a garage out of his home. She does not feel what she was to install will be an eyesore. She understands that there are standards but she cannot drive down a street in Salem without seeing a detached carport similar to what she would like to have. She has a hard time believing that every one of those has applied for a variance; and WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois inquired as to the staff notes contained in the staff report that states staff would like to maintain the required ten foot side yard setback if possible and if not, a minimum of a five foot setback be observed; and - iii - October 18, 2018 WHERES, Mrs. Wetzork responded that technically the porch and screened porch, although technically a part of the home itself, but from the home to the garage there is at least five feet; and WHEREAS, Captain Copenhaver explained that the City would like a ten-foot side yard setback if possible. If not, a five-foot setback is requested; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wetzork stated that when Mr. Sellers measured it appeared that there would be a five-foot setback on either side; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sellers stated that there was some confusion as to how close to the house the carport could be placed but it was verified with Mrs. Wines that it could sit as close to the house as possible but may not be attached. If it were to be placed over the existing driveway there is probably twenty feet of setback; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines added that for clarification staff’s intentions were to make the placement as uniform as possible if the Board found merit in the petition. The staff notes are for guidance to adhere to the principal structure setbacks but if not the accessory structure setbacks will suffice; and WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois indicated that when he drove through the neighborhood he noticed several structures within a few blocks and probably were placed prior to the existing ordinance; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wines explained that yes the current ordinance had been in effect for some time now and that similar to the Building Inspections Division, the Zoning Division is a complaint driven division due to shortage of staff. If a formal complaint is received on things such as a detached carport, then it will be addressed; and WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois inquired if the structure was portable without footings; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wetzork responded that it will have anchors but no footings; and WHEREAS, Mr. Van Allman stated that it is required from the Building Inspections Division that the carport be suitably anchored; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wetzork identified that the carport is to be set for up to one hundred forty miles per hour winds; and WHEREAS, Chairman DuBois asked if there was any others to speak on this matter. Hearing none, Chairman DuBois asked for discussion from the Board. Hearing none, Chairman DuBois stated he would entertain a motion; and - iv - October 18, 2018 Frank B. Sellers, Jr. Aye There were no other petitions presented before the Board None VII. UNFDINISHED BUSINESS: None VIII. NEW BUSINESS: None IX. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman DuBois adjourned at 4:30 p.m.