Board of Zoning Appeals Agendas and Minutes

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS · CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA Meeting Agenda · December 7, 2020 CHAIRMAN: John C. (Jack) Pope. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Linda Ellis MEMBERS: Dr. Arne Hasselquist, Michael Harris, Dr. Tamika Lett, Tim Smith (Alternate) WORK SESSION 4:30 PM – CDD Conference Room, 3rd Floor City Hall I. Questions about agenda items REGULAR MEETING 5:00 PM – City Council Chambers, 8th Floor City Hall I. Roll call II. Minutes of the October 5, 2020 meeting III. Public hearing items A. VA20-00020: Greg Scoles, GD&S Construction, 154 Cherokee Rd, LRSN 1006378, request a variance to reduce the minimum required side yard from 5 feet to 3.5 feet and reduce the total required depth of the two side yards from 12.5 feet to 11.2 feet in order to construct a 14 foot by 24 foot addition to a single family dwelling. B. VA20-00015: Florence Webb, 406 Greenbriar Ave, LRSN 1004980, request a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 5 feet in order to construct an 8 foot by 8 foot shed in the front yard. C. VA20-00018: David Pugh, 4508 Victoria Blvd, LRSN 2003784, request a variance to increase the maximum rear yard coverage allowed from 20 percent to 28 percent in order to construct an accessory structure in the rear yard. D. VA20-00019: David Pugh, 4508 Victoria Blvd, LRSN 2003784, request a variance to reduce the required side setback for accessory structure on a corner lot from 15 feet to 11.5 feet in order to construct a 16 foot by 65 foot garage in the rear yard. IV. Other Items V. Adjournment As a courtesy to others during the meeting, please turn off cellular telephones or set them to vibrate. Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Administration Division 22 Lincoln Street | Hampton, Virginia 23669 www.hampton.gov | Hampton’s 311: 757.727.8311 | O.757.727.6140  1 CITY OF HAMPTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 WORK SESSION SUMMARY 3 4 October 5, 2020 5 The City of Hampton Board of Zoning Appeals held a work session on Monday, October 5, 2020 6 at 4:30 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room, City Hall, 22 Lincoln Street, 7 Hampton, Virginia. 8 9 In attendance were: Chairman John C. Pope, Vice-Chair Linda Ellis, Board Members Dr. 10 Tamiaka L. Lett, Michael Harris and alternate Tim Smith. Also present were Zoning Administrator, 11 Hannah Sabo, Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown, Senior City Planner Allison Eichele, City 12 Planner, Olivia Askew, City Planner, Joseph Dennie and Administrative Assistant/Recording 13 Secretary, Margaret Leach. Also in attendance were applicants Douglas Wilson and Billy 14 Daughtrey. 15 Chairman Pope called the work session to order. 16 17 Zoning Administrator, Hannah Sabo stated that the agenda had changed order and she has 18 provided the board with the new agenda. 19 20 In reference to VA20-00012, VA20-00013 and VA20-00014, these will be heard together but 21 voted on separately. Zoning Administer Hannah Sabo explained that these cases are in 22 reference to the Starbucks proposed at Hampton University. These variances are for the 23 signage that is proposed at the site. There was some discussion about whether or not extra 24 menu boards are really necessary. Vice Chair Ellis stated that she would like to see an additional menu board one as it can be time consuming waiting on a car ahead to place 25 their order. A reference was made to the new Starbucks on Mercury Blvd. and how difficult it is 26 to get in and out without traffic backing up on Mercury Blvd. There was some discussion about 27 the amount of signs requested for the façade of the building. 28 29 In reference to VA20-00010 and VA20-00011, these two cases will be heard together but voted 30 on separately. Vice Chair Ellis stated that she had been by the address and it is a really pretty 31 area. Vice Chair Ellis stated that there is a conex box currently at the site and was wondering if 32 it will be removed is the variance is approved. The applicant stated that the conex is 33 temporary. 34 In reference to EX20-00004, there was a question asked as to why the fence needed to be 35 extended. 36 37 There being no further items to discuss, the work session adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 BZA Minutes: October 5, 2020 Page - 1  1 AT A REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF 2 THE CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, CITY HALL, 3 22 LINCOLN STREET, AT 5:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2020. 4 5 ITEM I. ROLL CALL 6 7 Chairman Pope called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 8 A call of the roll noted those present: Chairman John C Pope, Vice-Chair Linda Ellis, Board 9 Members Michael Harris, Dr. Tamika Lett and Alternate Board Member Tim Smith. 10 11 Also present were Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo, Senior City Planner Allison Eichele, City 12 Planner Olivia Askew, City Planner, Joseph Dennie, Deputy City Attorney Bonnie Brown, and 13 Administrative Assistant/Recording Secretary Margaret Leach. 14 15 ITEM II. MINUTES – September 14, 2020 16 17 A motion was made by Vice Chair Ellis and seconded by Board member Harris, to approve the September 14, 2020 Board of Zoning Appeals work session and public hearing meeting minutes. 18 19 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 20 21 AYES: Harris, Lett, Smith, Pope 22 NAYS: None 23 ABSTAIN: Ellis 24 ABSENT: Hasselquist 25 26 ITEM III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 27 A. VA20-00012: Stasia Rohn, Hilton Displays, 1006 Settlers Landing Rd., LRSN 12001035, 28 request a variance to increase the maximum allowed number of freestanding signs 29 30 associated with a drive-thru lane from two to three for the proposed Starbucks a the 31 north end of the subject property. 32 After being sworn in by the court reporter, Senior City Planner, Allison Eichele presented the 33 case on behalf of the City. 34 35 After being sworn in by the court reporter, Stasia Rohn with Hilton Displays presented the case 36 on behalf of Starbucks. . 37 38 A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Ellis and went no further as there was no one to second 39 the motion. 40 41 A motion was made by Board member Harris to deny the request as it did not satisfy all the required criteria for approval of variances set forth in the Code of Virginia and seconded by 42 Smith. 43 44 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 45 46 AYES: Harris, Lett, Smith 47 NAYS: Ellis, Pope 48 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hasselquist BZA Minutes: October 5, 2020 Page - 2  1 2 Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo Shapiro advised Ms. Rohn of their right to appeal the 3 decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Circuit Court within 30 days. 4 5 B. VA20-00013: Stasia Rohn, Hilton Displays, 1006 Settlers Landing Rd., LRSN 12001035, 6 request a variance to increase the allowed number of facades which can hold 7 wall signage from two to four per establishment for the proposed Starbucks at the 8 north end of the subject property. 9 10 After being sworn in by the court reporter, Senior Planner Allison Eichele presented the case on 11 behalf of the City. 12 13 After being sworn in by the court reporter, Stasia Rohn, with Hilton Displays, presented the case 14 on behalf of the Starbucks. 15 After discussion, a motion was made by Board member Harris to approve the variance request 16 with the staff condition that the menu boards shall be constructed in conformance with the 17 sign package presented with this case. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Ellis. 18 19 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 20 21 AYES: Harris, Lett, Smith, Ellis, Pope 22 NAYS: None 23 ABSTAIN: None 24 ABSENT: Hasselquist 25 26 C. VA20-00014: Stasia Rohn, Hilton Displays. 1006 Settlers Landing Rd., LRSN 12001035, 27 request a variance to increase the allowed number of facades which can hold wall 28 signage from two to four per establishment for the proposed Starbucks at the north 29 end of the subject property. 30 31 After being sworn in by the court reporter, Senior Planner Allison Eichele presented the case on 32 behalf of the City. 33 After being sworn in by the court reporter, Stasia Rohn, Hilton Displays presented the case on 34 behalf of the Starbucks. 35 36 After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Ellis to approve the variance request. 37 As there was no second and Alternate Smith stated that he did not see that there needed to 38 be a sign facing the apartments. Deputy City Attorney Brown stated that Board could 39 recommend a different number and if the applicant agreed a motion could then proceed. 40 41 A motion was made by Alternate Smith to have three (3) façade signs and the applicant can 42 decide where they will go. The motion was seconded by Board member Dr. Lett. 43 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 44 45 AYES: Harris, Lett, Smith, Pope 46 NAYS: Ellis 47 ABSTAIN: None 48 ABSENT: Hasselquist BZA Minutes: October 5, 2020 Page - 3  1 D. VA20-00010: Douglas Wilson, 1758 N King St., LRSN 8004988, 8004992, 8004993, 2 8004991, 8004990, request a variance to reduce the minimum green area required 3 from 40 percent to +/- 37.5 percent in order to construct an accessory structure. 4 After being sworn in by the court reporter, City Planner Olivia Askew presented the case on 5 behalf of the City. 6 7 After being sworn in by the court reporter, applicant Douglas Wilson presented his case. 8 9 After discussion, a motion was made by Vice-Chair Ellis to approve the variance request. The 10 motion was seconded by Board Member Dr. Lett. 11 12 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 13 14 AYES: Harris, Lett, Ellis, Smith, Pope NAYS: None 15 ABSTAIN: None 16 ABSENT: Hasselquist 17 18 E. VA20-00011: Douglas Wilson, 1758 N King St., LRSN 8004988, 8004992, 8004993, 19 8004991, 8004990, request a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage 20 allowed from 20 percent to +/- 23.7 percent in order to construct an accessory 21 structure. 22 23 After being sworn in by the court reporter, City Planner Olivia Askew presented the case on 24 behalf of the City. 25 After being sworn in by the court reporter, applicant Douglas Wilson presented his case. 26 27 After discussion, a motion was made by Vice-Chair Ellis to approve with the staff 28 recommendations. 29 30 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: 31 32 AYES: Harris, Lett, Smith, Ellis, Pope 33 NAYS: None 34 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hasselquist 35 36 F. EX20-00004: Applicant, New Look Home Improvement, 80 Oakville rd., LRSN 37 8004931, to request a Chesapeake Bay exception to allow a 15.5 square foot 38 encroachment into the Resource Protection Area (RPA) in order to construct a vinyl 39 picket fence. 40 41 After being sworn in by the court reporter, City Planner Joseph Dennie presented the case on 42 behalf of the City. 43 After being sworn in by the court reporter, the applicant, New Look Home Improvement 44 presented their case. 45 46 After discussion, a motion was made by Alternate Smith to deny the exception due to failure to 47 satisfy all the required criteria for approval. 48 A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: BZA Minutes: October 5, 2020 Page - 4  1 2 AYES: Harris, Lett, Smith, Ellis 3 NAYS: Pope 4 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hasselquist 5 6 7 ITEM V. ADJOURNMENT 8 9 There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 10 p.m. 11 12 ____________________________ 13 John C. Pope, Chairman 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 BZA Minutes: October 5, 2020 Page - 5  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION December 7, 2020 R-13 Case No. VA20-00020 O-IH Prepared By: Olivia Askew, City Planner Case Type: Variance Location: 154 Cherokee Rd. Zoning District: R-13 Overlay Zones: O-IH 154 Cherokee Rd Owner/Applicant: Greg Scoles Request: A variance to reduce the minimum required side yard from five (5) feet to 3.5 feet and reduce the total required depth of the two side yards from 12.5 feet to 11.2 feet in order to construct a 14 foot by 24 foot addition to a single family dwelling. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Section(s) Ch. 4, Sec. 4-65(2): “Building setback regulations” The depth of the two (2) side yards shall total at least twenty-five (25) percent of the lot width, measured at the front setback line. No individual side yard shall be less than ten (10) percent of the lot width unless the total side yard depth is required to be twenty-five (25) feet or more. In that case, one (1) of the side yards may be reduced to ten (10) feet in depth, with the balance of the twenty-five (25) percent located in the remaining side yard. Any side yard along the side street of a corner lot shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet. Summary VA20-00020 is a request to reduce the minimum required side yard from five (5) feet to 3.5 feet and reduce the total required depth of the two side yards from 12.5 feet to 11.2 feet in order to construct a 343 square foot addition to a single family dwelling. Located in the rear yard, the 343 square foot one-story addition would contain a laundry room, bedroom, and closet. Like many older properties in Hampton within the Infill Housing Overlay (O-IH), the residence is constructed close to the property line. The side setbacks for a 50 foot wide property in the R-13 district are 12.5 feet total, with a minimum side setback of five (5) feet. The existing side setback for the legally non-conforming residence is 2.4 feet and 10.1 feet total. The proposed setback for the addition is 3.5 feet. Prior to requesting a variance, a building permit (B20-00728) for 154 Cherokee Rd was applied for to construct the addition in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance with side setback of 5.1 feet. Those plans were approved by zoning and plans review. The approved survey is attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit A. From the Senior Plans Reviewer’s perspective, building the addition to  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION comply with the Zoning Ordinance development standards presents no functional or practical issue that would prohibit the addition from compliance.  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION Criteria for Review of Variances See Virginia Code §15.2-2201 and §15.2-2310; Zoning Ordinance §13-11 Summary of Criteria Staff Considerations 1. Strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict utilization of the property or that granting a variance would alleviate an undue hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property; 2. The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for  The Applicant has not demonstrated the variance; unreasonable restriction of utilization of the 3. The granting of the variance will not be of property. substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that  There is no shown hardship. geographical area; 4. The condition or situation of the property  The condition is not so general that an concerned is not of so general or recurring a amendment to the ordinance is warranted. nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be  Granting the variance would not result in a adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; change to the zoning classification of the 5. The granting of the variance does not result in a property. use that is not otherwise permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification  Relief sought cannot be obtained through an of the property; and exception process. 6. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application. Staff Recommendation: Denial  Based on the information provided by the applicant and evaluation of the standards of review for variances provided in Sec. 13-11(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends denial of VA20-00020. Staff recommends the following conditions if Board approves: 1. Construction the addition shall be built in substantial conformity with the attached site development plan, dated July 15, 2020. Example Motions: EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE: I move we approve the variance because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: I move we approve the variance with the conditions recommended by staff because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE: I move we deny the variance because the application does not meet the criteria in the Virginia Code due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION]. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION 154 Cherokee Rd  Exhibit "A" Approved Site Development Plan  CITY OF HAMPTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLAN APPROVAL ZONING OFFICIAL _____________________ 9/23/2020 DATE ________________ R-13 (O-IH) FZ: X(Unshaded) CBP: Out AICUZ: Out Footings to be field verified per Footer Handout. [This page is left intentionally blank.] [This page is left intentionally blank.]  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION December 7, 2020 O-IH Case No. VA20-000015 R-11 Prepared By: Garek Hannigan, City Planner 406 Greenbriar Ave Case Type: Variance Location: 406 Greenbriar Ave. Zoning District: R-11 Overlay Zones: O-IH Owner/Applicant: Ms. Florence Webb Request: A variance to reduce the required front yard setback from the average of the block to 5 feet in order to construct an 8 foot by 8 foot shed. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Section(s) Ch. 9, Sec. 9-43.(3): Front yard setback There shall be a front yard setback equal to the average of the front yard setbacks for single family residences on the same block. A block shall be defined as three hundred (300) feet in both directions on the same side of the street. Summary VA20-00015 is a variance request to reduce the required front yard setback from the average of the block to 5 feet in order to construct an 8 foot by 8 foot shed at an existing single-family dwelling. 406 Greenbriar Ave is in the R-11 zoning district, 30’ wide and 3,975 square feet. Due to the width and area of the parcel, it is considered substandard and falls into the Infill Housing Overlay. Like many older properties in Hampton within the Infill Housing Overlay, the residence is constructed close to the property lines, and is setback only 20.5 feet from the front property line. In the Infill Housing Overlay, setback is determined by the average of the block. When located in the front yard, accessory structures, such as sheds, must meet the front setback requirements for the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the shed can only be constructed in the front yard due to the inability for a vehicle to access the rear yard from the front of the property. The residence is setback 4 and 4.2 feet from the both side property lines respectively. There is an unimproved alley behind the property. Within the Infill Housing Overlay, a minimum of 50 percent of the front yard shall be green area. Currently, those requirements are being met. If this variance were to be approved, the proposed  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION placement of the shed would cause this property to no longer meet the minimum green area. Because of this, staff recommends the deferral of this variance until either the proposed shed location is altered to meet the green area requirements, or another variance is pursued to alter the required green area.  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION Criteria for Review of Variances See Virginia Code §15.2-2201 and §15.2-2310; Zoning Ordinance §13-11 Summary of Criteria Staff Considerations 1. Strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict utilization of the property or that granting a variance would alleviate an undue hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property; 2. The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance; 3. The granting of the variance will not be of  A shed may be built in the rear yard. substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that  The condition is not so general that an geographical area; amendment to the ordinance is 4. The condition or situation of the property warranted. concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the  Granting the variance would not result in a formulation of a general regulation to be change to the zoning classification of the adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; property. 5. The granting of the variance does not result in a  Relief sought cannot be obtained through use that is not otherwise permitted on such an exception process. property or a change in the zoning classification of the property; and 6. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application. Staff Recommendation: Denial  Based on the information provided by the applicant and evaluation of the standards of review for variances provided in Sec. 13-11(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends denial of VA20-00015. Staff recommends the following conditions if Board approves: 1. Construction of the shed shall be built in substantial conformity with the attached site development plan. Example Motions: EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE: I move we approve the variance because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: I move we approve the variance with the conditions recommended by staff because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE: I move we deny the variance because the application does not meet the criteria in the Virginia Code due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION]. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION 406 Greenbriar Ave [This page is left intentionally blank]  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION December 7, 2020 Case No. VA20-000018 R-13 VICTORIA BLVD Prepared By: Garek Hall 4508 Victoria Blvd Hannigan, City Planner Case Type: Variance WRIOTHESLEY ST Location: 4508 Victoria Blvd. Zoning District: R-13 Overlay Zones: N/A Owner/Applicant: Mr. David Pugh Request: A variance to increase the maximum rear yard coverage from 20 percent to 28 percent in order to construct a 16 foot by 65 foot garage. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Section(s) Ch. 1, Sec. 1-24(3): “Accessory Buildings or Structures” In any One- or Two-Family Residential ('R') District, the R-M District, the LFA-5 District, and on any fee-simple lot in any MD-1, MD-2, MD-3, or MD-4 District, accessory buildings or structures shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the rear yard area. Summary VA20-00018 is a variance request to increase the maximum rear yard coverage from 20 percent to 28 percent in order to construct a 16 foot by 65 foot garage at an existing single-family dwelling. This variance is being presented in conjunction with VA20-00019 which is a variance to reduce the required side setback for an accessory structure on a corner lot from 15 feet to 11.5 feet in order to construct the 16 foot by 65 foot garage in the rear yard. The parcel is 9,920 square feet with 80 feet of frontage. The R-13 zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet. 4508 Victoria is smaller than the R-13 zoning district requires, making it a substandard lot. The rear yard is 80’ wide by 48.5’ deep. The rear yard was previously occupied by a 15 foot by 21 foot garage which predated the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1960. Per the applicant, the previous garage fell into disrepair and collapsed. The property was recently subject to a Property Line Vacation, SUB2020-0055P, which vacated an interior lot line. Per the survey provided, dated 11/12/2020, the rear yard is 3,920 square feet. This would allow for up to 784 square feet of coverage under Section 1-24(3), which limits the rear yard coverage to 20 percent. The applicant has stated that the increase in maximum rear yard coverage has been  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION requested in order to construct a 16 foot by 65 foot garage which will store inventory from a closed business operated by the applicant.  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION Criteria for Review of Variances See Virginia Code §15.2-2201 and §15.2-2310; Zoning Ordinance §13-11 Summary of Criteria Staff Considerations 1. Strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict utilization of the property or that granting a variance would alleviate an undue hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property; 2. The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for  The applicant has not demonstrated the variance; unreasonable restriction of utilization of the 3. The granting of the variance will not be of property. substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that  The hardship is created by the applicant. geographical area;  The condition is not so general that an 4. The condition or situation of the property amendment to the ordinance is warranted. concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be  Granting the variance would not result in a adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; change to the zoning classification of the property. 5. The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such  Relief sought cannot be obtained through an property or a change in the zoning classification exception process. of the property; and 6. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application. Staff Recommendation: Denial  Based on the information provided by the applicant and evaluation of the standards of review for variances provided in Sec. 13-11(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends denial of VA20-00018. Staff recommends the following conditions if Board approves: 1. Construction of the garage shall be built in substantial conformity with the attached site development plan, dated 11/12/2020. 2. The garage shall only be used in a manner commonly accessory to that of a single-family dwelling. Example Motions: EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE: I move we approve the variance because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: I move we approve the variance with the conditions recommended by staff because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE:  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION I move we deny the variance because the application does not meet the criteria in the Virginia Code due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION]. 4508 Victoria Blvd et [This page is left intentionally blank]  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION December 7, 2020 Case No. VA20-000019 R-13 VICTORIA BLVD Prepared By: Garek Hall 4508 Victoria Blvd Hannigan, City Planner Case Type: Variance WRIOTHESLEY ST Location: 4508 Victoria Blvd. Zoning District: R-13 Overlay Zones: N/A Owner/Applicant: Mr. David Pugh Request: A variance to reduce the required side yard setback for an accessory structure on a corner lot from 15 feet to 11.5 feet in order to construct a 16 foot by 65 foot garage. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Section(s) Ch. 1, Sec. 1-24(2)(b): “Accessory Buildings or Structures: When Located on a Corner Lot” No accessory building on a corner lot shall be erected nearer to the street than the requirements herein contained for side yards of corner lots, except an accessory building or structure erected on a corner lot which abuts any interior lot on the side street, then the setback requirements shall not be less than the front yard requirements of the main buildings on the interior lots. Ch. 4, Sec. 4-65(2): “Side yard.” The depth of the two (2) side yards shall total at least twenty-five (25) percent of the lot width, measured at the front setback line. No individual side yard shall be less than ten (10) percent of the lot width unless the total side yard depth is required to be twenty-five (25) feet or more. In that case, one (1) of the side yards may be reduced to ten (10) feet in depth, with the balance of the twenty-five (25)percent located in the remaining side yard. Any side yard along the side street of a corner lot shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet Summary VA20-00019 is a variance request to reduce the required side yard setback for an accessory structure on a corner lot from 15 feet to 11.5 feet in order to construct a 16 foot by 65 foot garage at an existing single-family dwelling. This variance is being presented in conjunction with VA20- 00018 which is a variance request to increase the maximum rear yard coverage from 20 percent to 28 percent in order to construct the 16 foot by 65 foot garage at an existing single-family dwelling.  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION The parcel is 9,920 square feet with 80 feet of frontage. The R-13 zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet. 4508 Victoria is smaller than the R-13 zoning district requires, making it a substandard lot. The rear yard is 80’ wide by 48.5’ deep. The rear yard was previously occupied by a 15’ by 21’ garage which predated the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1960. Per the applicant, the previous garage fell into disrepair and collapsed. The property was recently subject to a Property Line Vacation, SUB2020-0055P, which vacated an interior lot line. Per the survey provided, dated 11/12/2020, the rear yard is 80’ wide and meets the lot width requirements of an R-13 lot. The required side yard setbacks for an accessory structure on a corner lot are 15’ on the street side and 3’ on the interior side. The proposed 65’ wide structure sits 11.5’ from the street side property line and 3.5’ from the interior side property line. The applicant has stated that the reduction of the required side yard setback has been requested in order to construct a 16’ by 65’ garage which will store inventory from a closed business operated by the applicant.  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION Criteria for Review of Variances See Virginia Code §15.2-2201 and §15.2-2310; Zoning Ordinance §13-11 Summary of Criteria Staff Considerations 1. Strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict utilization of the property or that granting a variance would alleviate an undue hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property; 2. The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for  The applicant has not demonstrated the variance; unreasonable restriction of utilization of the 3. The granting of the variance will not be of property. substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that  There is no shown hardship. geographical area;  The condition is not so general that an 4. The condition or situation of the property amendment to the ordinance is warranted. concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be  Granting the variance would not result in a adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; change to the zoning classification of the property. 5. The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such  Relief sought cannot be obtained through an property or a change in the zoning classification exception process. of the property; and 6. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application. Staff Recommendation: Denial  Based on the information provided by the applicant and evaluation of the standards of review for variances provided in Sec. 13-11(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends denial of VA20-00019 Staff recommends the following conditions if Board approves: 1. Construction of the garage shall be built in substantial conformity with the attached site development plan, dated 11/12/2020. 2. The garage shall only be used in a manner commonly accessory to that of a single-family dwelling. Example Motions: EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE: I move we approve the variance because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: I move we approve the variance with the conditions recommended by staff because strict application of the ordinance would [unreasonably restrict utilization of the property/create an undue hardship] due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION] and all the other criteria in the Virginia Code are met. EXAMPLE MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE: I move we deny the variance because the application does not meet the criteria in the Virginia Code due to [INSERT JUSTIFICATION].  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF EVALUATION 1728 N King Street  Exhibit "A" Building Plans submitted with B20-01052 [This page is left intentionally blank] [This page is left intentionally blank]