Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/23/2023 - Zoning Appeal - Agenda -Board of Zoning Appeals AGENDA Thursday, February 23, 2023, 4:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street 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 2023. 4.C onsent Agenda A.Minutes C onsider approval of the minutes of the August 26, 2021, and October 28, 2021, meetings. 5.New Business A.F loodway Variance Request Request of the C ity of Salem, property owner, and Roanoke C ounty, project administrator, for a variance from Section 106-226.7 of the C ode of the City of Salem, to allow construction of the greenway trail, extending from the existing trail on Salem C ity owned property (Tax Map # 178- 4-1) near Kingsmill Drive to the Roanoke County owned property (Parcel ID # 056.01-01- 17.00-0000) near Riverside Nursery. Section 106—226.7(A) states that no new construction shall be permitted, except where the effect of such development on flood heights is fully offset. B.F loodway Variance Request Request of the C ity of Salem, property owner, for a variance from Section 106-226.7 of the C ode of the City of Salem, to allow the bridge widening of Apperson Drive Bridge along with incidental greenway trail work on and near the 1600 block East Riverside Drive (Tax Map # 259-2-1). Section 106—226.7(A) states that no new construction shall be permitted, except where the effect of such development on flood heights is fully offset. 6.Adjournment Board of Zoning Appeals MINUTES Thursday, August 26, 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 August 26, 2021. Notice of such hearing was published in the August 12, and 19, 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, Belanger 2. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider approval of the minutes of the May 27, 2021, meeting. Vice-Chair Copenhaver. motioned to consider approval of the minutes of the May 27, 2021, meeting. Mr. Sellers seconded the motion. Ayes: DuBois, Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers Absent: Derr, Eanes, Belanger 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 Matthew and Kathryn Cookston, 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 436 Westland Street, Tax Map# 171-2-13. 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. 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. Proper legal notice was given, and all adjacent property owners were notified. Chairman DuBois inquired if there was any correspondence. Ms. Wines responded affirmatively that a phone call from a neighbor on the east side of the entrance to the park was received. Once the proposal was explained the neighbor did not have any issues with 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. Mr. Matthew Peters with Covenant Engineering, 2728 Colonial Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015, appeared before the Board. Mr. Peters stated that they developed the drawings for the petitioners. He stated that the property owner, was out of state and could not attend the meeting. He thought the reason for the request was included in the packet. Ms. Wines replied that the petitioners are requesting a variance to allow an addition on the house for a large family room and full bathroom. Vice-Chair Copenhaver asked if the addition would, in any way, extend into the neighboring properties. Mr. Peters replied that a survey was completed and that there was fourteen feet to the property line and that the addition would not extend to the property line. Vice-Chair Copenhaver inquired if the city had any objections to the request since it is adjacent to the entrance to the park the city owns. Ms. Wines responded that city management has reviewed the application and it is felt that the addition will not impede with the pedestrian traffic into the park, so the city has no opinion. Mr. Sellers stated that from his observance that there is another eight feet or so between the addition and the fence to the alley going into the park. Ms. Wines replied that the fence that is marked on the plat is nine feet into the City’s property. They have since put up a fence on their property line so the secondary fence, the fence to the west, shows the actual property line. Vice-Chair Copenhaver stated that the fence along the entrance into the park has not been moved. Would the city have any interest in trying to reclaim those nine feet by forcing them to move the fence back. Ms. Wines answered that the City was not going to take action at this time but if it was ever necessary to utilize the full width of the entrance that they could come through and remove the fence that encroaches into city property. Chairman DuBois asked if the petitioner requested to have the alley vacated. Ms. Wines responded that the petitioner did not submit an official request, but the city would not necessarily consider the request due to the traffic that utilizes this park entrance. Mr. Gresham asked if staff knew that when the neighborhood was developed that there was some sort of error and there was incorrect information at that time. Ms. Wines replied that she was not aware of that, that the pictures on the GIS were not completely accurate, but that the property lines should be correct. Chair DuBois asked how much actual space is there between the corner of the addition and the property line. Mr. Peters replied one foot. Mr. Sellers inquired if there was to be an overhang on the addition that would encroach into the one foot. Mr. Peters stated not that it is a flush gable end on that one wall. Chairman DuBois inquired if the city would ever be interested in widening the park entrance. Ms. Wines responded that there are two other entrances to the park and staff does use the northern entrance for equipment and the entrance in question is typically just pedestrian traffic. Chairman DuBois asked if there was anyone else to speak on this matter Mr. Dustin Wimbush of 426 Westland Street appeared before the Board. He stated he is the neighbor closest to the addition. He fully supports their request. 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. Gresham motioned to grant a variance of 8.2 feet of side-yard setback and 25 feet of rear-yard setback to allow an addition. Mr. Sellers seconded the motion. Ayes: DuBois, Copenhaver, Gresham, Sellers Absent: Derr, Eanes, Belanger 3. Adjournment Chairman DuBois adjourned the meeting at 4:11 p.m. ATTEST: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Winston J. DuBois, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals 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(B)(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(B)(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 B. Variance Request The request of Richard H. and Elizabeth K. Macher, property owners, for a variance from Section 106-204.3(B)(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(B)(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. 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 3. Adjournment Chairman DuBois adjourned the meeting at 4:31 p.m. ATTEST: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Winston J. DuBois, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals OWNER INFORMATION usE oURRENT CONTACT INFORMATION FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS. (AN ADDITIONAL SHEET MAY BE ATTACHED FOR MULTIPLE OWNERS) of Salem address: 1 14 N Broad St P Code: 24153 communitvdev@salemva.oov AGENT INFORMATION of Roanoke Attention David M. Henderson, address: 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke rail:dh8nd€rson@manokecounlyva.gov l 540.776.7155 APPLICATION DETAILS Appeal of Zoning Decision: r Details: of Decision: o Allow: New greenway trail within Roanoke River floodway boundaries. of Zoning Ordinance:ng near 2304 W Riverside Dr and roughly following the river 106-226.7 to connect with the existing greenway trail (Woodbridge ). Prolect being administered by Roanoke County and majority is Unreasonable Restriclion Hardship due to Physical Condition the county. This is Phase 1 of a multi-phase project connecting to Park. For flood elevation calculations, the overall project is considered. 1 (this project, seeking BZA approval) causes no net rise. Certifylng net rise for Phase 2 may be contingent upon work performed in Phase , but Phase 1 calculations can stand alone. PROPERTY INFORMATION #: 178-4-1 1500 Blk of W Riverside Dr Use: vacant APPLICATION CHECKLIST Letter detailing .justification for request (Variance & Appeals) A scale drawing of the property & proposed pro,ect, with location map Application Fee NA Ten (10) copies of application & associated materials, Submifted digitally SIGNATURES certify that the information supplied on this application and on the attachments provided (maps and other ) is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge. I further agree to submit payment to the for costs associated with the legal advertisement of the above request. ln addition, I hereby permission to the agents and employees of the City of Salem to enter the above property for the of processing and reviewing the above application. Also, the petitioner understands that a which is involved with a '23nature of Agent: n will be BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PETITION APPLICATION 540-375-3032 540.772.2083 For: Details: Requsst Variance: X Description: 1 .464 AC - Parcel C Westclub Corporation WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY, PHASE 1; VDOT UPC 97171 LOCATION MAP Created: 2022-12-07 11:23:51 [EST] (Supp. No. 23, Update 1) Page 1 of 2 Sec. 106-226.9. Variances. (A) The Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with section 106-528, may consider petitions for variance(s) from the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, that all relevant factors pertaining to the danger to life and property caused by increased flood levels and velocities due to encroachments are thoroughly examined. In considering applications for variances, the Board shall consider the following factors: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. 3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions. 4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. 5. The important of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location and a location within a floodplain district. 7. The availability of alternate locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development anticipated in the foreseeable future. 9. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for the area. 10. The safety access to the property by ordinary and emergency vehicles in times of flood. 11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site. 12. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this division. (B) No variance shall be granted for any proposed use, development or activity within any floodway district, except in full compliance with all of the following requirements: 1. The variance will not cause any increase in flood levels during the 100-year flood. (Appropriate documentation from a registered engineer must be submitted which substantiates the impact on flood heights, velocities and flows through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and calculations.) If the variance involves any alterations or relations to a floodway or its channel, such alterations or relocations shall also be approved as required by law. (C) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall notify the applicant for a variance(s) in writing that the issuance of a variance(s) to construct a structure below the 100-year flood elevation: 1. Increases the risks to life and property; and 2. Will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. (A) A record of the notification, as well as all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, shall be maintained, and any variances which are issued shall be noted in the annual report submitted as required by law. (B) Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the state landmarks register without regard to the procedures set forth in this section. (C) Requirements for granting a variance within the floodplain shall be as follows: Created: 2022-12-07 11:23:51 [EST] (Supp. No. 23, Update 1) Page 2 of 2 1. The failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; 2. The variance will be the minimum relief to any hardship; and 3. The granting of such variance will not result in: a. Unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights; b. Additional threats to public safety; c. Nuisances; d. Fraud or victimization of the public; or e. Conflicts with local laws or ordinances. 4. The applicant has shown a good and sufficient cause to justify the variance. (Ord. of 3-14-05(2)) Hydraulic Analysis of  Proposed Bridges & Trail Fill Sections  West Roanoke River Greenway  Roanoke County / City of Salem, VA  July 16, 2019  Table of Contents    TABLE OF CONTENTS    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  NO‐RISE CERTIFICATION   1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND   ................................................................................    1  2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES / GOALS   ...............................................................................................  2  3. DATA SOURCE   .......................................................................................................................  4  4. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BRIDGE AND ALTERNATIVE   ...............................  4  a. General   .....................................................................................................................  4  b. Bridge 1   ....................................................................................................................  5  c. Bridge 2   ....................................................................................................................  6  d. Trail Fill Sections   .......................................................................................................  7  5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..........................................................................................................  8  a. General   .....................................................................................................................  8  b. Bridge 1   ...................................................................................................................    8  c. Bridge 2   ....................................................................................................................  9  d. Trail Fill Sections   ......................................................................................................  10  APPENDICES   APPENDIX A Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), Floodway Data Tables, & Flood Profiles   Map Number 51161C0138G and 51161C0136G from September 28, 2007 FIRM  APPENDIX B Bridge Situation Plans and Cross Section / Trail Bench Plans and Cross‐sections  APPENDIX C Select Summary Output Tables from Hydraulic Analysis (HEC‐RAS Runs)  APPENDIX D Model Cross Section Locations    Hydraulic Analysis of  Proposed Bridges & Trail Fill Sections  West Roanoke River Greenway  Roanoke County / City of Salem, VA  July 16, 2019      Executive Summary    The design plans for the West Roanoke River Greenway Project located in Roanoke County, VA  proposes the construction of two (2) bridges to span the Roanoke River.  Both bridges are to be  situated within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA or 100‐year Floodplain) and the Regulatory  Floodway (or a portion thereof) of the Roanoke River.  In addition, a portion of the greenway trail  design (generally between trail stations 61+00 through 80+50) will result in a trail alignment and  cross section that utilizes a gabion basket / reinforced earth retaining wall section that results in  placement of fill in the Floodway/Floodplain.  In order to evaluate compliance with Roanoke  County, City of Salem, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain and  Floodway Regulations, a Hydraulic Analysis of the proposed bridges and fill‐based sections of the  trail alignment was performed.    Bridge 1 is proposed to be located +/‐ 83‐feet upstream of Diuguids Lane.  The bridge design and  the hydraulic analysis indicated a bridge spanning the river at this location would be +/‐ 230‐feet  in span length and the low‐chord of the bridge would need to be set at elevation 1052.00.  The  hydraulic analysis indicated a “no‐rise” in the base flood elevation (BFE) can be obtained with this  configuration (the placement of the structure 1‐foot above the base flood elevation) and by  incorporating side‐slope/flood channel modifications or “compensatory cuts” along the trail  alignment immediately downstream of the proposed bridge.    Bridge 2 is proposed to be located +/‐ 2,890‐feet downstream of Diuguids Lane.  The bridge  design and the hydraulic analysis indicated a bridge spanning the river at this location would be  +/‐ 155‐feet in span length and the low‐chord of the bridge would need to be set at elevation  1044.5.  The hydraulic analysis indicated a “no‐rise” in the Base Flood Elevation can be obtained  with this configuration (the placement of the structure 1‐foot above the base flood elevation)  and by incorporating side‐slope / flood channel modifications or “compensatory cuts” along the  trail alignment just upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge.    In the portion of the trail alignment where gabion basket/reinforced earth retaining wall sections  were used various alternatives were considered.  The alternative that resulted in the most  desirable results included bench‐cuts along the toe of the trail and wall where feasible, and the  incorporation side‐slope / flood channel modifications or “Compensatory Cuts” in the immediate  vicinity.    This hydraulic analysis was performed using trail alignments, bridge crossing locations and  geometries, and elevations shown on the plans dated October 19, 2018 and marked as “Final  Plans / Not for Const.”  The hydraulic analysis should be updated if the final design is modified  due to final review and approval comments.