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, OCTOBER 1, 2012. Present: Chairman Thomas Savage, Vice Chair Peters, Board Members Linda Ellis, John Pope, and Rodney Gentry. Also present were Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro, Senior Deputy City Attorney Lesa Yeatts, and Recording Secretary Victoria Byrd. The Chairman called the meeting to order and asked that the minutes be considered. A motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Ellis that the minutes of the September 17, 2012 meeting be approved as written. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Pope, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gentry, Peters ABSENT: None Variance Request No. 12-00042: Kevin & Melinda Lowe, 11 Henry Street, LRSN: 21002302, to reduce the required side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ to allow an 8’ by 16’ addition to the side of the building. The applicant’s representative, Doug Moore, 23 Lyliston Lane, Newport News, VA 23601, presented the variance request to the board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Vice Chair Peters that the variance request does not meet the criteria and therefore the variance 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, Pope, Peters, Savage Page 1 of 3  NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The applicant’s representative was informed that he has 30 days from October 1, 2012 to appeal the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton. Variance Request No. 12-00043: Jay & Claudine Harvey, 823 Redheart Drive, LRSN: 3001018, to increase the maximum rear yard coverage for accessory structures from 27% to 31% to allow a 12’ x 16’ shed in the rear yard. The applicant, Jay Harvey, presented the variance request to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Gentry and seconded by Vice Chair Peters that due to a previous variance approval in 2004 increasing the coverage of the rear yard from 20% to 27% the new variance request does not meet required criteria and therefore the variance 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, Pope, Peters NAYS: Savage ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The applicant was informed that he has 30 days from October 1, 2012 to appeal the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton. Variance Request No. 12-00044: Jason Clark, 322 Manack Road, LRSN: 8003176, to reduce the required front yard setback from 31’ to 20.75’ to allow a 10.25’ x 15.17’ addition to the front of the building. The applicant, Jason Clark, presented the variance request to the Board. Page 2 of 3 After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Ellis that since the Clark’s purchased the home believing the existing structure was legally built and that the square footage of the structure was included in the overall square footage of the home, the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship and therefore the variance should be granted because: 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, Pope, Savage NAYS: Peters ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm. __________________________ Thomas Savage, Chairman Page 3 of 3