Board of Zoning Appeals Agendas and Minutes

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, HELD IN THE HARDY CASH CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, AT 5:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2012. Present: Chairman Thomas Savage and Board Members Linda Ellis, Rodney Gentry, Vice-Chair Burnett Peters, and John Pope. Also present were Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro, Senior Deputy City Attorney Lesa Yeatts, Court Reporter Virginia Giles, and Recording Secretary Mary Cole. The Chairman called the meeting to order and asked that the minutes be considered. A motion was made by Board Member Gentry and seconded by Board Member Peters that the minutes of the May 21, 2012 meeting be approved as submitted. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Gentry, Peters, Pope, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 12-00019: A public hearing was held on the application submitted by Joe Wilkins, 13 Eastbriar Court, LRSN 3005184, a variance to increase the fence height from 6’ to 8’ to allow the placement of a fence on the lot. The applicant, Joe Wilkins, presented the variance request to the Board. The Board made the finding that there is evidence that the strict application of the ordinance causes undue hardship by preventing and denying Mr. Wilkins complete use of his property, that the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, that the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance, and that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Vice-Chairman Peters that the variance pertains only to the fence along the back or rear property line between the Sweetbriar apartments and 13 Eastbriar Court, and that the variance be granted because: Page 1 of 3  1. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2. The hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance; and 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Gentry, Peters, Pope, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 12-00022: A public hearing was held on the application submitted by Water of Life Fellowship, 2019 Cunningham Drive, Unit 210, LRSN 7001558, a variance to reduce the required left side building setback from 30’ to 16’, reduce the required right side building setback from 30’ to 26’, reduce the required rear parking setback from 10’ to 0’, reduce the required side parking setback from 10’ to 3’, and reduce the required parking from 86 spaces to 60 spaces, to allow a church in an existing building. The applicant’s representatives, Philip Boardman, Water of Life Fellowship, mailing address 2017 Cunningham Drive, Suite 210, and Rick Alexander of Newport News, Pastor of Water of Life Fellowship, presented the variance request to the Board. Mr. Boardman introduced two additional representatives in attendance at the meeting: Shane Gardner of Hampton, and Lt. Commander Semp of Carrollton. Mr. Shapiro read a letter on behalf of the Coliseum Central Design Review Board in opposition to the request; he also stated that Elizabeth McCroury of the Coliseum Central Business Improvement District was in attendance if the Board had questions of her. The Board discussed that granting the variance would not only apply to the church, but would be a precedent set for the entire (commercial office) building because the variance runs with the building. The Board made the finding that there has been no evidence produced that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardships, and the hardship is shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, and authorization of the variance will be of substantial Page 2 of 3 detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the district will be changed by the granting of the variance, and granting of the variance is not in harmony with the intended spirit of the ordinance. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Ellis that the variance does not meet the criteria below and should be denied because: 1. There has been no evidence produced that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardships; 2. The hardship is shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3. Authorization of the variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will be changed by the granting of the variance; and 4. Granting of the variance is not in harmony with the intended spirit of the ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Gentry, Peters, Pope, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The applicant was advised that he has 30 days from June 4, 2012 to appeal the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm. __________________________ Thomas Savage, Chairman Page 3 of 3