Board of Zoning Appeals Agendas and Minutes

AT A REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING 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, APRIL 1, 2013. Present: Chairman Thomas Savage, Vice-Chairman Burnett 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. Chairman Savage 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 Pope that the minutes of the March 18, 2013, meeting be approved as written. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Gentry, Pope, Peters, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Variance Request No. 13-00002: Eugene A. Stoudenmire, 40 Buffalo Drive, LRSN: 11003741, a variance to increase the height of a fence, located within 20’ of the intersection of two curb lines on a corner lot, from 3’ to 4’ at an existing single-family residence. The applicant, Mr. Stoudenmire, presented his case to the Board. Darren Osouna, Touch of Class Fencing, 332 Rip Rap Road, spoke in support of Mr. Stoudenmire’s request. Zoning Administrator, Steven Shapiro, stated that the fence in the front yard of the property is actually 5’ in height not 4’ as shown on the plat. There are multiple issues that would need to be addressed, the fence cannot be more than 4’ tall from the building setback to the street, current front yard fence height is taller than 4’ and it must drop down to 3’ at the intersecting curb lines. Had a permit been applied for, these issues would have been addressed at that time. Mr. Shapiro also stated that the staff recommended denial of the variance request because it did not meet the four criteria. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Gentry and seconded by Board Member Pope that no hardship exists and therefore the variance should be denied because: Page 1 of 2  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 NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The applicants were informed that they have 30 days from April 1, 2013 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 5:20 p.m. ____________________________ Thomas Savage, Chairman Page 2 of 2