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, JUNE 3, 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 May 6, 2013 meeting be considered. A motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Gentry that the minutes 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 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. Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro made a recommendation to group the first three cases into one discussion since the same applicant is on each case requesting the same variance, but to vote on each case separately. The Board and applicants agreed to group all three cases into one discussion. VA13-00007: Merrimack Grove & Associates, LLC, 74 Manilla Lane, LRSN 13002749, a variance to increase the maximum height of a residential fence in a rear yard from 6’ to 8’ to allow an existing 8’ fence to remain on an existing single-family parcel. After all witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter, Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro stated that the application to allow an existing 8’ fence to remain on the existing single-family parcel 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. Walker, presented his case to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Gentry that the hardship is due to the public safety issues brought on by the adjoining property to the rear and shared by these three lots; Board Member Ellis 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 VA13-00008: Bradford Builders, LLC, 76 Manilla Lane, LRSN 13002750, a variance to increase the maximum height of a residential fence in a rear yard from 6’ to 8’ to allow an existing 8’ fence to remain on an existing single-family parcel. After all witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter, Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro stated that the application to allow an existing 8’ fence to remain on the existing single-family parcel 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. Walker, presented his case to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Gentry that the hardship is due to the public safety issues brought on by the adjoining property to the rear and shared by these three lots; Board Member Ellis 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 VA13-00009: Edward J. Boyd, Jr., 77 Manilla Lane, LRSN 13002751, a variance to increase the maximum height of a residential fence in a rear yard from 6’ to 8’ to allow an existing 8’ fence to remain on an existing single-family parcel. After all witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter, Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro stated that the application to allow an existing 8’ fence to remain on the existing single-family parcel 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. Walker, presented his case to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Gentry that the hardship is due to the public safety issues brought on by the adjoining property to the rear and shared by these three lots; Board Member Ellis 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 VA13-00010: Kenneth Miller, 202 Albany Drive, LRSN 3001209, a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 30’ to 18’ to allow a 12’ x 24’ one- story rear addition on an existing single-family home. 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 and due to the fact that the addition could be re-oriented without the need for a variance. The applicant, Mr. Miller, presented his case to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Peters 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 5:40 p.m. ____________________________ Thomas Savage, Chairman