HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2023 - Zoning Appeal - Agenda -Board of Zoning Appeals
AGENDA
Wednesday, October 25, 2023, 4:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
1.C all to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.C onsent Agenda
A.Minutes
C onsider approval of the minutes of the June 22, 2023, and September 27, 2023, meetings.
4.New Business
A.Variance Request
Request of G KM Properties, LLC, property owner, for a variance from Section 106-202.3(A) of
the C ity of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site development regulations, for the property
located at 800-802 Maryland Avenue, Tax Map # 147-2-1. T he petitioner is requesting a variance
of twenty-five (25) feet of frontage and twenty-five (25) feet of lot width. As advertised in the October
12, and 19, 2023, issues of the S alem Ti mes R egi ster. S TAF F R E P O RT
5.Adjournment
Board of Zoning Appeals
MINUTES
Thursday, June 22, 2023, 4:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall, 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, City Hall, 114 North Broad
Street, Salem, Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on June 22, 2023. Notice of such hearing was
published in the June 8, and 15, 2023, 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.
Chairman DuBois called the hearing to order at 4:00p.m.
Chairman DuBois asked for the roll call.
Ms. Wines stated, and the appropriate party responded: Mr. Sellers present, Mr. Eanes here,
Mr. Gresham here, Captain Copenhaver present, Chairman DuBois here.
Chairman DuBois requested that everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Old Business
Chairman DuBois asked if there was any old business.
Ms. Wines stated the Board did not have any old business items.
Chairman DuBois inquired if the Board had a copy of the minutes and if so, he would
entertain a motion.
Captain Copenhaver motioned to approve the minutes from the last meeting of the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Gresham seconded the motion.
Chairman DuBois requested a roll call vote.
Ms. Wines stated, and the appropriate party responded: Mr. Sellars Aye, Mr. Eanes Aye,
Mr. Gresham Aye, Captain Copenhaver Aye, Chairman DuBois Aye.
Chairman DuBois stated that should anyone disagree with the board’s decision today you
have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of City of Salem. You exercise your right to
appeal no later than 30 days following the board’s decision by filing a petition to the Circuit
Court specifying the grounds of which you are aggrieved.
Chairman DuBois requested the secretary to read the first item of new business.
Ms. Wines stated that this date and time has been set to hold a public hearing to
consider the request of Jeffrey M. & Kathleen A. Shelton, property owners, 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 a pergola/future sunroom addition in the
rear yard of 2113 Mountain Avenue (Tax Map # 213-3-1). 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 five (5) feet of rear setback. Proper legal notice has been
given and all property owners have been notified.
Chairman DuBois inquired if there was any correspondence or phone calls.
Ms. Wines responded that the office received one phone call from the neighbor at 2131
Mountain Avenue adjacent to the petitioner. The neighbor requested an explanation of
what the variance request was for, and when explained, stated she was in favor of the
request.
Chairman DuBois opened the public hearing stating that anyone to speak should give their
name, address, and relationship to the request.
Jeffery M. Shelton, property owner, appeared before the Board stating has come before the
Board today with a very unique situation. When they applied for a permit for the concrete
pad for the pergola, they discovered that their side yard, by zoning statues is actually their
rear yard. Mountain Avenue terminates on what they consider their side property, but by
the zoning ordinance it is technically considered their front yard, so they are asking a
variance from the 25 feet setback. In their opinion, and every neighbor around them, it is
actually their side yard, not their front yard. There is included with the packet a map of the
property and what they are looking to do.
Chairman DuBois clarified that the construction area is on the side of the house.
Mr. Shelton responded that the side of the house is technically considered the back yard.
Chairman DuBois inquired if that was the area for consideration because it appears
construction has already begun.
Mr. Shelton replied that the city staff has been very good to work with as they did a
renovation about three years ago and the contractor had a crew that just happened to have
an open day, so it was requested that they dig the footers. While they were digging the
permit application was submitted and that is when this issue came to light.
Chairman DuBois restated that this was when it happened.
Mr. Shelton responded affirmatively that if the variance is denied then they will have the
contractor re-dig the footers to comply with the setback.
Chairman DuBois asked if the footers had been inspected yet.
Ms. Wines responded negatively.
Mr. Shelton replied that nothing had been poured that there are just holes in the ground.
Chairman DuBois inquired if any of the board members had questions for the petitioner.
Captain Copenhaver asked how long the petitioner has lived at this address.
Mr. Shelton responded that he has lived there since 1987.
Captain Copenhaver questioned if the petitioner ever realized that Mountain Avenue
terminated at their property line.
Mr. Shelton answered that he thought Mountain Avenue stopped somewhere between
where it is listed as stopping and his neighbors’ property. He thought it stopped in the
middle of his property, but come to find out, after the fact, that it is deeded right-of-way.
Chairman DuBois stated that it is confusing.
Mr. Shelton replied that it is very confusing, but it is what it is.
Mr. Sellers inquired as to why the house does not face Mountain Avenue.
Ms. Wines responded that development standards have changed over the last 30, 40, 50
years. Actually, there are codes changes to be introduced, that if you were to build a new
house, the front door would have to face the street to which it is addressed. So that these
types of issues will not continue to happen. If those lots were empty today in that area, in
his area, they would not be able to build because the right of way does not extend across
their property. So, it is just a transition in the change over the years, and it comes about in
many different areas of the city.
Chairman DuBois inquired if the city could change anything that could homeowners such
as Mr. Shelton so they do not run into these issues in the future or do things just stay the
way they are?
Ms. Wines responded that things would stay the way they are regarding the existing homes
that are built this way so there will be future requests over the next several years because
you can no longer build without the right of way adjacent to the property. So, the ones that
are existing will not change.
Mr. Eanes asked about the future sunroom location.
Mr. Shelton explained that the sunroom will be constructed on the proposed concrete pad if
the variance is granted. The sunroom will not be constructed for another five years.
Mr. Eanes inquired if the petitioner would have to come back before the Board.
Ms. Wines explained that this variance request would cover the sunroom addition. An at
grade concrete slab can be poured and it does not have to meet the setback requirements.
When you add a structure and additions it must meet the setback requirements.
Chairman DuBois inquired if there was anyone to speak on the matter and hearing none
closed the public hearing at 4:09 p.m.
Captain Copenhaver motioned for approval.
Mr. Gresham seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote: Mr. Sellers, aye. Mr. Eanes, aye. Mr. Gresham, aye. Captain Copenhaver,
aye. Chairman DuBois, aye.
Chairman DuBois stated the decision of the Zoning Administrator for the City of Salem in
refusing to issue a permit to the petitioner is hereby confirmed. The variation from the
terms of the zoning ordinance requested in the application of the petitioner should be, and
the same is, hereby granted in accordance with the application presented at this meeting.
The petitioner may now obtain a building permit. The secretary of the Board of Zoning
Appeals is here by instructed to certify a copy of this order to the Clerk of City Council and
the Building Official of the City of Salem. This hearing is complete.
Chairman DuBois adjourned the meeting at 4:09 pm.
ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Winston J. DuBois, Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
Board of Zoning Appeals
Unapproved MINUTES
Thursday, September 27, 2023, 4:00 PM
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 September 27, 2023. Notice of such hearing was published in
the September 14, and 21, 2023, 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, Maxwell S. Dillion, Planner, and Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning
Administrator; and the following business was transacted:
Captain Copenhaver called the hearing to order at 4:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Mr. Zoller, here. Mr. Sellars, here. Mr. Eanes, here. Mr. Gresham, here. Captain
Copenhaver, here.
3. Disclaimer
Captain Copenhaver declared 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 the
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 aggrieved. Chairman
Copenhaver asked if everyone understood, if not, to ask when they approach.
4. New Business
A. Variance Request
Request of Crystal G. H. Lowery, property owner, for a variance from Section 106-
202.3(A) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site development
regulations, for the property located at 1000 block of Ohio Avenue, Tax Map # 197-1-15.
The petitioner is requesting a variance of twenty-five (25) feet of frontage, twenty-five (25)
feet of lot width and one thousand five hundred square feet (1,500) square feet of lot area.
Proper legal notice has been given and all property owners have been notified of said
hearing. There have been two (2) phone calls inquiring as to what the request is about and
one (1) neighboring property owner that had some concerns as far as access goes; that may
be better addressed through the rezoning process if it moves forward.
Captain Copenhaver asked if all the board members had the opportunity to review the
correspondence associated with this matter. All responded with yes. Captain Copenhaver
asked the petitioner or their representative approach and present their case, asking for them
to state their name, address, and relationship to this hearing.
Donald Haddon employed at 1208 Corporate Circle with Balzer and Associates, the agent
of the requesting party. Crystal Lowery approached Balzer requesting that they do a
variance because there is a requirement for rezoning. This variance would go right along
with most of all the other lots in that area. Across the alley is already zoned RSF and the
lots are of like size and shaping in square footage. Future land use for the city is RSF. They
would like it to be single family and across Ohio Avenue is that redevelopment of the
Valleydale site, which is going to be a very large residential reuse for that parcel there. So,
it fits right in line with everything that is happening in the area. We are requesting a little
bit of a variance from the lot size and frontage. Lot size is currently 50 by 130. if he
remembers correctly, and we are asking for a variance of fifteen hundred (1,500) square
foot from the required square footage of RSF and twenty-five (25) foot of road frontage of
the required road frontage to accommodate a preexisting non-conforming lot.
Captain Copenhaver asked if Mr. Haddon could tell a bit more on how they are planning on
a building fitting in this lot and where the situation wise in relation to the lot next to it.
Donald Haddon answered the house next door at 1021 is the only lot other than the very
first lot at the alley that are being accessed from the alley. We are planning on setting our
proposed dwelling that is twenty-six (26) feet wide and forty-eight (48) feet deep, fifty (50)
foot back from the alley and that would put the front of that house right around, he did not
know what would be considered the front of the adjoining house at. It is accessing from the
alley, so we would consider the front on the alley. This building would be almost dead in
line with the back side of that house. This is going to allow for a little bit more off street
parking and drive there. Not to have a car to close to the alley to impede any traffic so to
say any turn arounds of emergency vehicles so to say. It is going to provide for a better turn
around in that area.
Captain Copenhaver asked if there was a plan to create an access from Ohio Avenue.
Donald Haddon responded that there was not currently, simply because of the topography
of the lot. The question was brought up about access. The main concern was of the
emergency vehicles back there. Currently there is an existing little gravel drive up front that
is insufficient for a driveway and insufficient for a turnaround especially for say a fire
truck. But if a forty (40) foot long driveway was added to get parking in front of this house
and to make it double wide that would give plenty of space to turn around. There is an
option of putting a parking spot down there and running a sidewalk down for emergency
access if that was a concern.
Mr. Zoller asked what the side yard setback requirement?
Ms. Wines responded that for RSF Residential Single Family, it is ten (10)% of the lot
width. Example if the lot is fifty (50) they require five (5) feet and that includes any
overhang, guttering, any part of the home.
Donald Haddon stated it will have a side yard setback of seven (7) feet. The sewer
connection would be to the alley, water connection out to Ohio.
Captain Copenhaver asked if there were any other persons wanting to speak on this matter.
Hearing none, Captain Copenhaver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gresham motioned for approval.
Mr. Eanes seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote: Mr. Zoller, aye. Mr. Sellars, aye. Mr. Eanes, aye. Mr. Gresham, aye.
Captain Copenhaver, aye.
Captain Copenhaver stated the decision of the Zoning Administrator for the City of Salem
in refusing to issue a permit to the petitioner is hereby confirmed. The variation from the
terms of the zoning ordinance requested in the application of the petitioner should be, and
the same is, hereby granted in accordance with the application presented at this meeting.
The petitioner may now pursue rezoning. The next planning commission meeting will meet
on the 11th of October. Followed by City Council meeting on the 23rd of October. The
secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals is here by instructed to certify a copy of this
order to the Clerk of City Council and the Building Official of the City of Salem. This
hearing is complete.
Captain Copenhaver adjourned the meeting at 4:11 pm.
ATTEST: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Captain Thomas L. Copenhaver, Vice-Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
CASE NUMBER:2023-006:
APPLICANTS: GKM Properties, LLC, 800-802 Maryland Avenue
STAFF
ANALYSIS
SALEM, VIRGINIA
800-802 Maryland Avenue
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Public Hearing Date:
October 25, 2023
Community Development
Zoning Administration
Division
21 South Bruffey Street
(540) 375-3032
APPLICANTS’ REQUEST
The request of GKM Properties, LLC, property owner, for a variance from Section 106-
202.3(A) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site development regulations,
for the property located at 800-802 Maryland Avenue, Tax Map # 147-2-1. The petitioner
is requesting a variance of twenty-five (25) feet of frontage and twenty-five (25) feet of lot
width.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
800-802 Maryland Avenue was built as an up/down duplex (two family dwelling) in 1966.
However, in 2013 a building permit was issued to demo the lower unit due to a sewer back up.
The unit sat vacant, and the property sold in 2015. The owner at that time discussed putting
the lower unit back; however, it was never completed. The property then sold in 2023 and the
current owner wishes to reestablish the lower unit.
According to section 106-526.3 if a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than two
years, then it must meet the current regulations. Currently, a two family dwelling requires a
special exception permit issued by City Council.
Section 106-524.1(A) of the zoning ordinance states: The administrator shall not accept any
special exception application, nor any use not provided for permit application for any lot or
acreage that does not meet the minimum size, width and/or frontage requirements of the
district where the use is proposed... In such situations, the applicant shall first seek a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. If a variance is granted, the administrator shall
thereafter accept the special exception or use not provided for permit application for
consideration by the Commission and Council.
Section 106-202.3, site development regulations for RSF requires a lot frontage of 75ft. and
lot width of 75ft. 800-802 Maryland Avenue currently consists of frontage of 50ft. and lot
width of 50ft. Therefore, the petitioners are requesting a variance of 25ft. of frontage and 25ft.
of lot width.
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.
(A) Minimum Lot Requirements.
1. Area: 9,000 square feet.
2. Frontage: 75 feet on a public street.
3. Width: In order to maximize land usage, lots which front on a curve and whose side lot
lines are perpendicular to the right-of-way center line are required to have an average 75-
feet width. All other lots will be required to have a minimum width of 75 feet.
NEIGHBORHOOD VIEW OF PROPERTY
The Board of Zoning Appeals can grant a variance only if certain legal requirements have been met. The following
questions are intended to help the applicant show that a variance is appropriate.
Please answer all questions as completely as possible. Attach additional pages if necessary.
1.Does the zoning ordinance uu n r e a s o n a b l y r e s t r i c t the use of the property? If so, how is the zoning
ordinance unreasonable?
1R7KLVLVDQH[LVWLQJGXSOH[RQDQH[LVWLQJQRQFRQIRUPLQJORWLQWKH56)]RQLQJGLVWULFW
2.Is there a h a r d s h i p related to the physical conditions of the property? If so, what physical conditions make
the variance necessary? Were those physical conditions present when the ordinance was adopted?
<HV7KHH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHZDVEXLOWEDVHGRQSULRUYDULDQFHDSSURYDOV'XHWRWKHVWUXFWXUHVLWWLQJXQILQLVKHGIR
IRUDWLPHIUDPHJUHDWHUWKDQ\HDUVWKH683ZDVUHQGHUHGQXOODQGWKLVLVWRUHLQVWDWHSULRUDSSURYDOVIRU
IXWXUHXVHDVDPXOWLIDPLO\ORWE\6SHFLDO([FHSWLRQ
3.Is a variance necessary to make a reasonable modification to the property or improvements requested by, or on
behalf of, a p e r s o n w i t h d i s a b i l i t y ? If so, describe what modification is needed, and why.
1R
4.If there is a hardship, was it created by the applicant?
1R
5.Is the condition or situation unique to this property, or is it common among other property in the area?
7KHFRQGLWLRQLVXQLTXHWRWKLVSURSHUW\DVLWLVDUHTXHVWIRUD6SHFLDO([FHSWLRQSHUPLW,WLVXQNQRZQ
WRWKHDSSOLFDQWDQGRUDJHQWWKHFXUUHQWXVHVRIDGMRLQLQJSURSHUWLHVZLWKRXWLQVSHFWLRQ
6.Would the variance have a negative effect on other property in the area?
1R7KHSURSHUW\ZDVGHYHORSHGDVDPXOWLIDPLO\ORWDQGKDVVLQFHPHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWIRUUHDSSOLFDWLRQRID
VSHDFLDOH[FHSWLRQSHUPLW
1 | Page
VARIANCE REQUEST NARRATIVE:
On behalf of GKM PTOPERTIES, LLC (Applicant), Balzer and Associates, Inc. (Agent)
is requesting a variance 25' of required lot width and road frontage of the subject parcel
within the RSF-Zoning district and lying at the South-East corner of the intersection of
Maryland Avenue and Pine Street, in the City of Salem. The proposed use of the is a
multi-family dwelling for residential use. A breakdown of the zoning is provided below.
An existing conditions survey has been provided as Exhibit A, which outlines the
existing use for the property.
Existing Site Conditions:
The existing parcel is located along the public right of way of Maryland Avenue
and Pine Street and is currently owned by GKM PROPERTIES, LLC.
The property is not located within a FEMA defined floodplain district nor are there
unique or sensitive environmental features on the subject properties including historic
districts/structures.
The adjacent public right of ways contains public water and sanitary sewer mains that
currrently serve the existing duplex..
Proposed Improvements:
The proposed improvements for the project include the renovation of a multi-family
dwelling to re-instate the special exception for this property and shall conform to the RSF
requirements of an existing non-conforming lot.
Access:
Existing access to the parcel is be from the public right of way of Pine Street. The
renovation of a multi-family residence should have minimal impact on traffic patterns.
2 | Page
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map
The future land use map indicates these properties as residential, therefore we are
maintaining an appropriate ‘zoning layering’ from the surrounding properties and
developments.
This block of the Salem Improvement Company map includes several developed lots
with existing residential uses and therefore is consistent with the proposed use outlined in
the comprehensive plan.
This project will be developed in accordance with applicable regulations set forth in the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance and shall comply with the RSF Standards of an existing
non-conforming lot.
ArcGIS Web Map
Buildings
Railroads
City Limits
Address Points
Zoning
AG - Agriculture District
BCD - Business Commerce District
CBD - Community Business District
CUD - College/University District
DBD - Downtown Business District
10/17/2023, 9:43:06 AM
0 0.01 0.030.01 mi
0 0.02 0.040.01 km
1:1,128
City of Salem GIS IntraNet Site
VITA, West Virginia GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA |