Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on July 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. President Richard Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present: Absent: Board Member John Six President Richard Wood Vice President Kevin McClung Board Member Raymond Friend Board Member Joe Manchin City Staff Present: City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick Recording Secretary Martha Richards APPROVAL OF MINUTES President Richard Wood asked for a motion to approve the minutes from June 5, 2014. Board Member Joe Manchin motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Raymond Friend seconded the motion. Minutes were approved 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR JULY 3, 2014 President Richard Wood: Public hearings for July 3, 2014. First public hearing is Dean Brannen who is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to house and care for up to six chickens, with no roosters kept on the property at 513 Hampton Road (Tax Map 01-45, Parcel 91). I do need to point out to the board that we have one letter from Mr. Fred Springs in opposition; he was not able to attend the meeting. (Mr. Springs was in the audience.) And also a phone call from Karen Davage, who is an adjacent property owner, and also opposes the chicken coop. Do we have a staff report? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: The request is from Mr. Brannen, living at 513 Hampton Road. The current zoning of the property is general residential, as is the property surrounding the applicant’s property. The applicant is requesting to be permitted to house up to six chickens at his home. The size of the parcel is the largest parcel to come before the board with these types of requests; it’s four acres on Hampton Road. The chickens would be kept in a coop, and we do have a site plan design for the coop Page 1 of 10 that would be of pre-manufactured construction that would be purchased to house the chickens. The standards by which the board would need to review this request is under Article 505, Animals and Fowl, Section 505.15, Keeping of Livestock, which states that no one shall keep livestock, including chickens, within 50 yards of any dwelling, church, school, hospital, or any other building which, from time-to-time, is used for human occupancy. In the sound discretion of the Board of Zoning Appeals, livestock may be kept in such numbers that would not create a health hazard, or hazard to the public, and in an enclosure maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and free from all refuse. This section further provides that no person shall permit any decaying food or any refuse of any kind to remain in such an enclosure. Refuse shall be swept up and kept in airtight containers and disposed of in accordance with the solid waste disposal regulations of the city. And no person shall permit any such refuse to remain uncovered. The only comments that I would add is that the size of the property would accommodate the applicants request; he has acknowledged that no roosters will be kept on the premise, and that all chickens will be housed in the enclosure, approximate size of 6’ x 10’. The location of the enclosure will have to be, at a minimum, 50 yards from any adjacent dwelling, including the applicant’s, or any other adjacent property owner’s dwelling, or any building that could be used from time-to-time for human occupancy. The applicant has acknowledged that these requirements will be met. That concludes the staff report. President Wood: Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this request? Mr. Dean Brannen: Thank you. My name is Dean Brannen; I am the applicant. I want to reiterate that I believe I am following all of the guidelines. I wasn’t aware, at least in conversation, that there was opposition, but there is, outside of the city limits, about three properties down from mine, a resident that houses chickens and does it in a clean and sanitary way, and you don’t even know they’re there. I feel like I could ensure everyone around my property that they won’t even know what’s going on. That’s all - I appreciate your willingness to hear this. President Wood: Does anyone have any questions? Is there anyone else who wants to speak in favor of this? None. President Wood: Is there anyone present to speak in opposition to this? Ms. Karen Davage: My name is Karen Davage, and I live right next door to where these chickens are going to be housed. His home is farther away. I would come out on my patio and have to smell these chickens all the time; wet chickens stink. I don’t care if you have a rooster, you’re still going to smell these chickens. I’ve been around chickens before, and I know they carry salmonella. They also carry an eye disease; my husband has that. I don’t understand why he has to have this. He can buy his chickens and eggs from Mr. Sayer, and there would be no problem. But, this coop is being built far from his home, and very close to mine, and I earnestly implore you to not let this go through. President Wood: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Mr. Fred Springs: My name is Fred Springs. I live on the backside of his property, on 13 McClure. The smell of chickens carries. I don’t care if it’s 3, 6, whatever. I oppose this. I’ve lived there since I was 8 or 9 years old; I am 60-some now. At one time, that property held a pigpen. It was a strong odor, Page 2 of 10 and not only when the wind shifted. The pigs would run out into the road. We fought that for years. Got away from that, now they want to put a chicken coop up there? No. When it rains, you just smell chickens. Chickens have an awful odor. If he wants that chicken coop, let him put it 50 feet outside his door – not in my backdoor where the wind carries; I don’t need that smell. President Wood: Any questions at this time from the Board? Discussion ensued on the location of the coop. Mr. Brannen approached the Board with a copy of the site plan; he was going to put the coop behind the garage, or towards the center of the property. He would be willing to talk to the neighbors and place it as far away from them as possible. There are about three acres of woods between the coop and Mr. Springs’ house – “woods that aren’t used for anything.” This is a very good barrier. The current location exceeds the distance that is in the regulations. Ms. Wyrosdick and Ms. Davage discuss the location of her house and the patio; Ms. Davage feels she would definitely smell the chickens from her patio. Ms. Wyrosdick suggests putting the coop further into the center of the property; Mr. Brannen is more than willing to talk about it. There is space between the properties; not woods, but a ravine. President Wood: Do we have any other questions? None. President Wood: Motioned to close the public hearing. Board Member Friend: Motioned to close. Board Member McClung: Seconded. Motion to close 4-0. President Wood: Any further comments from the Board? Board Member Manchin: Mr. Brannen was talking about an existing chicken coop three properties up. Where, on this map, is the other property? Mr. Brannen: It is outside the city limits, just off the map. Board Member McClung: And that’s why they have a chicken coop. President Wood: If there is no further discussion, I entertain a motion. Board Member Manchin: This is one of those great cases where someone is always upset. Mr. Davage: Why can’t you get your eggs from Mr. Sayer? He has 15 chickens. How’s he going to keep the predators out? The foxes, coons, snakes… Mr. Springs: You start with 10-15 chickens; now you have 20-30 and your chicken house gets bigger. The smell gets bigger. Doesn’t matter how many trees you have. President Wood: The conditional use stipulates how many chickens. He’s asking for up to six chickens. He can’t have more than that if this were approved. Page 3 of 10 Mr. Davage: How many turkeys can you have? President Wood: He couldn’t have any unless he came back. Mr. Davage: Now he has chickens, get me a couple of turkeys, eggs, you might as well have some bacon – bring them pigs back. Mr. Springs: We don’t want pigs back; they come under the fence. That was pretty rough then. President Wood: The only thing under discussion today is chickens. Mr. Springs: If you had to smell this all the time, you would have something to say about it. Mr. Brannen: Just to clarify, there are only up to six chickens I was requesting. Sure, we could buy our eggs at the store, but part of the reason for having them was the experience for our kids and having the opportunity to have our own eggs. I feel like, with the property we have, we can have some concession, we can have some agreement, because we live so close to the outskirts of the city limits. It’s not like we live in town where everyone has a tiny lot. I believe the WVU farm has a program about urban chicken farming that encourages cities and towns, like this one, to encourage people to do this in their back yards, as long as they abide by some regulation, as is listed in the code for the city. There seems to be some allowance for it, and I’m not asking for permission to have other livestock. Every day, we have deer and groundhogs, and wild turkey, bedding down, living back there. You see them every day, and they don’t create a problem. We have more of a problem with stray dogs that are not kept on a leash that roam our property; those are much more of a nuisance than chickens would ever be. It is a matter of the caretaker of the animals. This is the key. Dogs, cats, whatever – it’s the caretaker. If they let them loose, then they shouldn’t be allowed to maintain them. But if they keep them contained, and follow the guidelines, I believe it can be safe and beneficial for everyone. Certainly not a nuisance. Mr. Springs: I have something else to say about that. Your deer and your turkey are roaming free. They do not nest in one area. Ever. They are roaming animals. We have no dogs in our area that stray, except those coming from down Hampton Road. John White keeps his dogs on a leash. I don’t have a dog. Woman behind me has a dog on a leash. We have coyote, we have fox, we have wild turkey, we have deer, just roaming through the area. Not anything with permanent housing. President Wood: Again, I’ll ask the Board for a motion? Board Member Manchin: I’m trying to find the right words here, because it doesn’t look like tonight there’s any room for compromise. We have people who are clearly against this. I would hate to vote it down right now; I would love for you to have more conversations with your neighbors to see if there is anything you could do. And maybe table this and not have to go through this whole thing again. We would make a motion to table, and come back and revisit this to see if there would be any consensus because, as it stands right now, I have a hard time with it being in the city limits. I know it is close, I understand that, but when you have concerned citizens, for whatever reason, you have to take that into account also. They seem very knowledgeable, in that they have been raised around chickens at some time in their lives, and there is an odor. Over in the Eastern Panhandle, that is a mass product over there with their poultry farm, with huge complaints when the wind shifts; people are inundated with an odor. I don’t know if there can be more discussion between the neighbors; it may be that they are dug in and are going to stay their course. Would you want to talk any further on this? Ms. Davage: I am adamantly against it. Page 4 of 10 Board Member Manchin: With that being said, I would make a motion to deny. President Wood: We have a motion to deny the conditional use request. Is there a second? Board Member McClung: Seconded. President Wood: Moved and seconded; any further discussion? None. Motion carries 3-1 (Friend votes nay). President Wood: Next public hearing. George Finly is requesting variances for the following items for the property located at 1500 Locust Avenue (Tax Map 03-10, Parcels 81 and 81.1): Section 1317.09 Building height, and Section 1345.03 (b) (4) (A) and (B) Street tree requirements. There is also a conditional use; we can address that once we get through the variance. At this point, we’ll call for a staff report. City Planner Wyrosdick: This property was recently under scrutiny because it has gone through a current rezoning of the property when Mr. Leonard passed away and the heirs decided to sell the property, we realized the property was actually zoned neighborhood residential instead of main corridor commercial, and it was clear by our research through the Comprehensive Plan that the property should’ve been classified main corridor commercial, so we made that map correction through the rezoning process. During that process, the residents came out to the rezoning. It wasn’t tied to the new car wash, but they did raise some concerns, and these are residents along Fetty Avenue in the back. That runs parallel to Rte. 19, but just behind the car wash. Their concerns were, there is an old driveway that had been connected to Fetty from this site and they wanted to ensure that any new development on this site that that driveway not be reopened. We took that into account, met with the proposed developer of the site, Mr. Finly, and Michael Nestor from Thrasher. The DRC has reviewed the proposal. During that review, we noted that there were some variances that are not uncommon with redeveloped sites; those dealing with landscaping and street tree requirements are a little challenging to incorporate into this redevelopment because it’s so narrow, it’s very difficult for the developer to meet those requirements. In addition, dealing with the stormwater is by way of a rain garden, so we typically work with the developer to ensure that the rain garden is landscaped, and, therefore, would meet the requirements for landscaping and street tree requirements. But, you do see with the site plan that that requirement, that there is an attempt, there’s additional landscaping that you’re not seeing there. Another issue is access, and the DOH had their own take on the limitations of access to and from the site. As you can see, there will be one way in and one way out of the site, coming one way in off of Country Club, and that curb is there now, but they will improve it by narrowing the mouth of that driveway with the landscaping, and then one way out to Locust, which is a right or left turn out of Locust. Those are both controlled driveways. The first iteration of the site plan did have a curb cut to Fetty, and we immediately addressed that with the applicant to revise their plan, and you have that revision that shows that there will be no driveway proposed out on to Fetty. Some of the other requirements are that this is a single story building - main corridor commercial tries to encourage two-story buildings, so the building height is not being met and Page 5 of 10 that’s not an uncommon thing to see with redeveloped sites. There is also the additional conditional use, because this is an auto service use, and it does require conditional use review and approval. Most of those standards for conditional use for auto service speak to car lots and not necessarily car washes. A lot of those regulations are not applicable. And with the revised site plan showing that there will be no access out to Fetty, staff is recommending approval of the variances as proposed, and the conditional use as proposed on the revised site plan that you have before you. President Wood: You had indicated that you had preliminary approval by the site plan review committee? City Planner Wyrosdick: Yes. President Wood: I have reviewed the agency comments and there were no negative comments from the agencies. Who is going to speak in favor of this? Mr. Mike Nestor: I am Mike Nestor, Project Manager with Thrasher Group. Obviously, I’m for the project. I don’t have anything specific to add. But, if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them, or walk you through the site plan. President Wood: Is there anyone else present to speak in favor of this? None. President Wood: Is there anyone present to speak in opposition to this? Mr. Joseph Fontana: My name is Joe Fontana and I live right behind Fetty Avenue. My understanding of the city code is that you cannot build a parking lot over a sanitary storm sewer. They just put a new one in there, and it’s covered by the state. They paved over the site; they had excess and they paved over the sewer. President Wood: Not sure of the connection between the DOH paving over storm and sanitary sewers, and this particular project. Mr. Fontana: There used to be a used car lot there, the city put new sanitary sewers in there. I understand you cannot put a parking lot over the sewer lines in case they have an emergency. If there’s a building or parking lot on top of it, they have to dig it up. That’s why they said no. President Wood: Did the applicant pave over this? The DOH paved over it. Mr. Fontana: They wanted to dump it, and they didn’t want to take it back, and they paved right over the manholes. Thank you. Page 6 of 10 Mr. Mike Spevok: My name is Mike Spevok and I’m a resident beside Joe. Our big question is, we’ve never seen an artist rendition or drawing or plat. (Kathy gives him a copy of a site plan and speaks briefly to the design.) The existing buildings would be removed, and there would be a 2-bay carwash. Joe Manchin: Mr. Spevok, the manholes that are covered, do you know where these are covered? Is it on 19, or going up? Mr. Spelok: Goose Run Road, going up toward Country Club, near the children’s center, and runs across the road and toward the Salvation Army, and out the back to the end of our residential area and on down toward Chancy’s. It’s covered underneath the highway. President Wood: The stream has been culverted and then paved over, and you don’t have a road there. Mr. Spevok: The next area are the sewage drains and there’s at least one out there beside the Salvation Army, and the old car lot. President Wood: It may be that the DOH shouldn’t have paved over the manholes. I’m not sure there is a connection between the work the DOH did and this particular project. I wouldn’t disagree that the DOH should’ve left the manholes uncovered and things like that, but I don’t see that there’s a direct connection between that situation and what DOH did and the proposal we have before us. Mr. Fontana: Would that be covered under the proposal here? City Planner Wyrosdick: They have identified all existing utilities. When we take proposals through the Development Review Committee, full site plans are required that identify all existing utilities. And that has been done. The stormwater coordinator and utility manager have seen these plans and reviewed them, so they are aware of where the pavement will be and will be working with the developer as it progresses. Mr. Fontana: Will there be trees around there? City Planner Wyrosdick: Yes Sir. Mr. Fontana: How big will they be? City Planner Wyrosdick: There is a size of what they will be at the time of planting. You have the plant schedule in front of you. Discussion continues about the location of the car wash and its green space and landscaping between Mr. Nestor, Mr. Fontana, and Mr. Spevoc. Removal of gas tanks, groundwater, springs, slippage and conduits are discussed. Mr. Fontana: I’ve lived here for 24 years; you can’t get in and out of here, the traffic is so heavy. Page 7 of 10 Mr. Nestor: This would be an entrance only. This is the preferred layout and accommodates the DOH. More discussion about traffic flow through the 5-road intersection, people not obeying the rules, and risking a high level of accidents. City Planner Wyrosdick: There is no other alternative for this site; it’s a tough site. However, the proposal, I thought actually improves the situation because you have controlled access, where currently you don’t have any controlled access. You can pull out for the entire length of Locust, and even on Country Club, you have no controlled driveways. This proposal actually improves the situation to the best that you can on this site. I understand why they were compelled to try to get a driveway up to Fetty, but we also knew that was not going to be the best thing for the residents. The residents were part of the rezoning discussion. I was pleasantly surprised to see how good they can get it, but it’s still a challenging site, and that’s just something the developer is going to have to gamble with. More discussion about traffic patterns, lane turns, alternatives, accident numbers, landscaping, and concerns (“demolition derby”) amongst the audience, including the helicopter pad up at Food Lion and the chaos it creates at the intersection. This may turn the buildings into rentals or just abandoned in the end. “This is ridiculous!” Mr. Nestor speaks of the auto-pay service that pushes you out the front – so you have to depart via the front, you can’t go the wrong way. What other uses can you fit on there? Mr. Spevoc: What about some sort of business office? Mr. Nestor: It’s just so narrow to accommodate parking. Mr. Fontana: Are they going to make this a 3-lane highway? City Planner Wyrosdick: Not that I’m aware of. President Wood: In front of the college, in their future plans, they want to widen the road, but a 3-lane road wouldn’t make any sense. More discussion about FSUs future plans to widen Locust Avenue. Inaudible discussion amongst everyone speaking all at once. President Wood: Any further comments at this point from anybody in the audience? Nestor discusses building height restrictions on the main roof line. The variance issue is not that it is too high, but that it is not two stories. They want to encourage two-story buildings, but that’s not the issue here. President Wood: Any questions by the board members? Page 8 of 10 Board Member Manchin: The variance you were asking for regarding the trees. Has that been worked out? It looks like the trees are pretty much everywhere on this property. Mr. Nestor: The street tree requirement, it seems you would be loading them here on Locust you’re right up against the narrow width of the property. That’s a no no. Pulling in and out of the site - that can create problems. Board Member Manchin: So this is a mute issue? President Wood: A compromise has been worked out, but we still have to prove the variance otherwise they would have to put those trees along the street. President Wood: Any other questions by board members? If not, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Manchin: Motioned to close. Board Member Friend: Seconded. Motion carries 4-0. President Wood: I entertain the motion. Board Member Manchin: It seems like there’s been good conversation, and with that, I would make a motion to approve. Vice President McClung: Seconded. Variance carries 4-0. President Wood: The last hearing again is directly related to this. It’s a conditional use for the car wash. As it is an automotive related use, it needs to be approved as a conditional use. Do you want to at least state for the record what you’re wanting to do? Mr. Nestor: The said property, that zone, doesn’t specifically address a car wash, but it’s still auto related; it just doesn’t state specifically that it is a car wash. City Planner Wyrosdick: It does fall into the conditional use, and as I stated previously, most of the conditions for an auto repair service, speak to this being an envisioned auto sales lot, but a couple of the requirements have to do with lighting and traffic flow, and we’ve discussed those over the site plan as you can see, and a lot of conversation about the driveway and access to and from the site. So the other ones really don’t apply, so, with the modification by removing that driveway to Fetty Avenue, staff did support conditional use. Page 9 of 10 President Wood: Thank you. Anyone in opposition to the conditional use? None. President Wood: I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Vice President McClung: Motioned to close. Board Member Friend: Seconded. Motion carries 4-0. President Wood: Is there a motion from the Board? Board Member Friend: I make a motion to approve the conditional use. Board Member Manchin: Seconded. Motion carries to approve 4-0. DISPOSITION OF PAST CASES None. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT President Richard Wood: Entertains motion to adjourn. Board Member Friend: Motioned to adjourn. Board Member Manchin: Seconded. Page 10 of 10