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, MAY 6, 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 Angela Leflett. Chairman Savage called the meeting to order and asked that the minutes of the April 15, 2013 meeting be considered. A motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Ellis that the minutes be approved as written. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Gentry, Pope, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Peters ABSENT: None Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro opened the meeting by reminding the Board that witnesses would now be sworn in by the court reporter prior to testifying and that, pursuant to the recent amendments to the Bylaws, the City would present its evidence first, followed by the applicant. VA13-00005: Mario J. Stellute, 1119 Chesapeake Avenue, LRSN 1004310, a variance to reduce a required side yard setback from 10’ to 9.5’ to allow a one-story rear addition at an existing single-family residence. After all witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter, Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro stated that the application to reduce the side yard setback should be denied due to the inability to meet the required criteria for a hardship as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia. The applicant, Mr. Stellute, presented his case to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope that the hardship is due to the fact that the original owner did not build in accordance with the zoning that was in place at that time that required a 10’ set back. Board Member Gentry seconded the motion, stating the request meets the four criteria and, therefore, the variance should be approved because:  1. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship relating to the property; 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 that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance; and 4. 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, Peters, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VA13-00006: FMW RRI I, LLC, 1925 Coliseum Drive, LRSN 7001260, a variance to increase the total number of allowable freestanding signs from 1 to 2; to allow the use of a freestanding pylon-style sign instead of the required freestanding monument-style sign; to increase the maximum size of a freestanding pylon sign from 90 square feet to 280 square feet; and to increase the maximum height of a freestanding pylon sign from 22’ to 128' to allow a 280-square-foot, 128-foot- high freestanding pylon-style business identification sign at an existing hotel. After all witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter, Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro stated that staff is recommending that the application be denied due to its inability to meet the required criteria for a hardship as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia. The agent, Mr. Forte, presented his case to the Board. The General Manager, Kevin Bruce, spoke for the variance to be approved. Executive Director of Coliseum Central L. Elizabeth McCoury spoke in opposition to the request. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Gentry that no hardship exists 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; and 2. The hardship is shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and  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 Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro informed the applicants that they had 30 days to appeal this decision to the Hampton Circuit Court. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. ____________________________ Thomas Savage, Chairman