Board of Zoning Appeals

AGENDA City of Williamsburg Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, July 1, 2025 A meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals will be held Tuesday, July 1, 2025 in the Stryker Center, 412 N. Boundary Street commencing at 4:00 P.m. Page CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MATTERS OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION OF ALLEN MURPHY OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. BZA#25-002: Request of Forest & Shelly Braden for a special exception 2 - 10 per Section 21-604 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory apartment within the single family detached dwelling for family related by blood or marriage. The property is located at 704 Powell St., Williamsburg Tax Map Number 524-04-00-B, and is zoned, Single Family Dwelling District RS-2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Meeting Minutes 11 - 16 ADJOURNMENT BZA#25-002 BRADEN June 25, 2025 Page 1 TO: Board of Zoning Appeals DATE: June 25, 2025 SUBJECT: BZA#25-002: Forest & Shelly Braden Special Exception Request – 704 Powell St. Request of Forest & Shelly Braden for a special exception per Section 21-604 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory apartment within the single family detached dwelling for family related by blood or marriage. The property is located at 704 Powell St., Williamsburg Tax Map Number 524-04-00-B, and is zoned, Single Family Dwelling District RS-2. Section 21-604 of the Zoning Ordinance allows, with a special exception, in accordance with 21-97(f), one accessory apartment to be maintained within a single-family detached dwelling in an RS-2 zoning district with approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. MAJOR QUESTIONS BEFORE THE BOARD In reaching a decision for a special exception under 21-604, the Board should consider the following: 1. Have all enumerated requirements of 21-604 been met? 2. Will the requested accessory apartment have a negative effect upon the peace and tranquility of adjacent properties or upon the value thereof? 3. Do the fee simple owners of the affected property agree to execute in form recordable among the land records of the clerk's office of the circuit court of the city and the County of James City an agreement to remove all kitchen facilities from and to do all other things necessary to establish the accessory apartment area as a functional, nondiscrete portion of the single-family dwelling housing same upon termination of the required temporary special exception permit? 4. Have the applicable requirements of section 21-97(f) have been met? Section 21-97(f)2 states that a special exception shall not be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals unless it is found that: 1. It is designated, constructed and operated to adequately safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the adjoining and surrounding property; 2. It does not unreasonably impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; Page 2 of 16 BZA#25-002 BRADEN June 25, 2025 Page 2 3. It does not increase public danger from fire or otherwise unreasonably restrict public safety; 4. It does not impair the established property values in surrounding areas. ANALYSIS The proposal is consistent with the intent of the RS-2 district – “as a single-family residential area with low population density. The regulations for this district are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the land and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life.” The proposed use will be operated in a manner that adequately safeguards the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants on the adjoining and surrounding property; not impair the supply of light and air to the adjacent property; not pose a danger to the public and will not impair the established property values in surrounding areas. The applicant notes that this is their primary residence, and the accessory apartment will be occupied by related family members. 704 Powell is a single-family detached home with no current accessory apartments. The proposed accessory apartment is within the allowable 800 square feet and accessible via the interior of the home. The applicant has agreed to record an agreement to remove the kitchen facilities at the termination of the special exception. The applicant has noted and agreed to comply with all requirements of Section 21-604 of the Zoning Ordinance for the ongoing use of the accessory apartment. A site plan has been submitted for the layout of the accessory apartment. All exterior changes have been approved by the Architectural Review Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a temporary special exception request BZA#25-002 to allow the establishment and maintenance of an accessory apartment during the time of allowed occupancy by Forest & Shelly Braden based on the criteria contained in Section 21-97(f)2 of the Zoning Ordinance and the above analysis. Heather Markle Zoning Administrator Page 3 of 16 Page 4 of 16 Page 5 of 16 STEMANN l PEASE ARCHITECTURE 704 Powell Street BZA Special Exception- Accessory Apartment Discussion/ Evaluation Criteria: ____________________________ It is designed, constructed and operated to adequately safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the adjoining and surrounding property. As a proposed addition, the construction and operation will meet all modern building code and zoning ordinance requirements, ensuring best results for neighbors adjoining and surrounding the property. ____________________________ It does not unreasonably impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The addition is located along the south building setback line, rendering no shadow to the property to the south. Due to this position on site, shadows cast by the single-story volume are limited to within its property lines. The building volume complies with setback requirements and, as such, provides ventilation to meet or exceed Williamsburg’s current zoning ordinance. _____________________________ It does not increase public danger from fire or otherwise unreasonably restrict public safety. The building addition, clad in cementitious siding and brick is more fire-resistant than its neighbors and the original wood-clad house . Public safety access is preserved by observing building setback lines and zoning requirements. _____________________________ It does not impair the established property values in surrounding areas. The addition, and its use as an accessory apartment for the homeowner’s parents should make the property more valuable now and in the future. Accordingly, no impairment of value is anticipated for any property in the neighborhood. 209 N. Boundary St. Williamsburg, VA 23185 757.220.2244 www.stemann-pease-architecture.com Page 6 of 16  Accessory Apartment Criteria- Section 21-604 _________________________________________ 1. The proposed occupants of the accessory dwelling are related to both Owner’s of the home by blood or marriage. They are the grandparents of the children that occupy the home with their parents (owners). 2. The unit in consideration will be the singular accessory apartment on the property and comply with all of the design requirements of this section (21-604). 3. The principal residence will be occupied full-time exclusively by the Owners and family. 4. The accessory apartment will be exclusively occupied by the grandparents/in-laws. Both of these individuals are 62 years of age, or older. 5. The subject lot at 704 Powell Street, RS-2 Zoning District is 13,113sf. This is about 130% of the required minimum lot area of 10,000sf. 6. On December 17, 2024 a ROW permit was received to extend the curb cut for a wider driveway that will line up with the proposed garage, which is confined by building setback lines. The proposed driveway and garage will provide (5) parking spaces, combined. 7. A siteplan has been prepared and is submitted herewith for informational purposes. 8. Floor and Site plans are included with this submission. The image at the top of this attachment conveys the character and scale of the proposed addition from the street. We are currently preparing building elevations and renderings for submission to the ARB on June 13. The ARB will review our final design submission on June 24. We will be pleased to present building elevations at the BZA meeting, or amend this application on or around June 13. 9. The floor area of the existing building exceeds 3200sf. Accordingly, the maximum allowable acccessory apartment area of 800sf applies to this property. The proposed accessory apartment totals 797sf. Spaces provided include a kitchen, one bedroom, one bath and an all-purpose space. The addition shares the finish floor elevation of the main living space of the principal residence as well as common walls and is connected by interior spaces. The building volume is placed to the south of the site for architectural and programming reasons. Architecturally, the addition is deferential to the primary residence. The residence, with its hip roof, disciplined elevations and stately twin masonry chimneys is a complete composition and would be disrupted by a simple lean- to addition. The owner wishes to preserve the rear yard for its young family and retain the original screen porch which occupies the rear façade. The addition to the south includes long-planned garage, laundry and mudroom spaces, all driven by the existing drive location and side entrance. The accessory apartment is a natural extension of these additions. No front entrance is planned, the primary access to the apartment will be from the primary residence. 10. The owners of the property shall execute in form recordable among the land records of the clerk's office of the circuit court of the city and the County of James City an agreement to remove all kitchen 209 N. Boundary St, Williamsburg, VA, 23185 757.220-2244 www.stemann-pease-architecture.com Page 7 of 16  facilities from and to do all other things necessary to establish the accessory apartment area as a functional, nondiscrete portion of the single-family dwelling at the termination of the special exception permit. 11. The owners of the property shall certify by affidavit delivered to the zoning administrator that the persons who will occupy such apartment are the same as those as to whom information was presented to the board of zoning appeals. 12. After completion of the accessory apartment, but prior to its occupancy, a fee simple owner of the main building housing same shall certify by affidavit delivered to the zoning administrator that the persons who will occupy such apartment are the same as those as to whom information was presented to the board of zoning appeals and that any handicap which formed the basis for the issuance of the temporary special exception permit continues. Upon receipt of such affidavit in proper form, an occupancy permit shall be issued. Thereafter, the applicant or other fee simple owner of the property in question shall submit such notarized affidavit to the zoning administrator by September 1 of each ensuing year as a requirement for the continuance of the temporary special use permit and the occupancy permit. Within 45 days after the use of an accessory apartment is discontinued or after said use ceases to comply with the requirements of this section, the kitchen facilities, other than permanently installed plumbing pipes located in the wall and/or floor, shall be removed and said accessory apartments shall be brought into compliance with this Code in all respects and the portion of the main building which had contained the accessory apartment shall not there after be occupied or maintained as a separate dwelling unit. "Kitchen facilities" shall include sinks, dishwashers, stoves, refrigerators and the like. END 209 N. Boundary St, Williamsburg, VA, 23185 757.220-2244 www.stemann-pease-architecture.com Page 8 of 16  10 ft. Building Setback Line ADDITION (50' R/W) SIte Plan (including work in ROW) STEMANN PEASE A R C H I T E C T U R E Page 9 of 16  Owners Storage Area Unconditioned, slab-on- grade Bedroom UP (4) RISER Living Kitchen island Storage Mudroom Laundry 5'-0" Accessory Apartment Plan Study- Concept A 0 8ft 10 ft. Building Setback Line Mudroom STEMANN PEASE A R C H I T E C T U R E Page 10 of 16  MINUTES City of Williamsburg Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2025 A meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on June 3, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in the Stryker Center, 412 N. Boundary Street. CALL TO ORDER Zoning Administrator Heather Markle called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL The following members were present: Chair Melinda Morgan, Vice-Chair Michael Jallo, Board Member Robert Lane, Allen Murphy, and Lori Forcucci Staff Attending: Zoning Administrator Heather Markle and Assistant Planner Heather Moore A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair Zoning Administrator Heather Markle asked for BZA Chair nominations. Melinda Morgan was nominated by Mr. Jallo. There were no other nominations Moved by Jallo, seconded by Forcucci, to nominate Melinda Morgan to serve as Chair for the Board of Zoning Appeals. Carried 5-0-0 by a roll call vote: Ayes: Morgan, Jallo, Lane, Murphy, and Forcucci B. Vice-Chair Chair Morgan nominated Michael Jallo as Vice-Chair. There were no other nominations. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Forcucci, to nominate Michael Jallo to serve as Vice-Chair for the Board of Zoning Appeals. Carried 5-0-0 by a roll call vote: Ayes: Morgan, Jallo, Lane, Murphy, and Forcucci OPEN FORUM Chair Morgan opened the Open Forum portion of the meeting for comments on any topic. No one requested to speak; Chair Morgan closed the Open Forum. Page 11 of 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BZA#25-001: Request of Timothy David Denby for a variance from Section 21- 167(2)c of the Zoning Ordinance to encroach 7.5 feet into the required side yard setback. The applicant proposes a side yard of 10 feet from the abutting Lafayette Street instead of the required 17.5 feet for a corner lot. The property is located at 228 Virginia Ave, Williamsburg Tax Map Number 435-02-00-018, and is zoned, Single Family Dwelling District RS-2. Zoning Administrator, Heather Markle, presented the case for the Board confirming that if the Board finds that the zoning ordinance unreasonably restricts the use of the property, it must consider five factors as noted in the memo and noted that per Section 21-97(b)3: the Board "... may impose such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use it may deem necessary in the public interest." Ms. Markle reviewed the neighborhood, stating that most lots feature a 50-foot width and are currently zoned RS-2. She reviewed the RS-2 zoning regulations, noting that the lot in question is 50 feet wide, allowing for a maximum building width of 22.5 feet within the required setbacks. She stated that the lot is non- conforming with current RS-2 standards due to its insufficient width and the presence of an accessory structure without a primary structure. Ms. Markle noted that under strict application of RS-2 standards, the parcel provides approximately 2,170 square feet of buildable area for a primary structure within the allowable setbacks. She reviewed the topography of the lot, which is rectangular and contains no significant slopes and is not subject to any known environmental protections that would limit development. Ms. Markle stated that the applicant has indicated an intent to construct a single-family detached residence on the property in the future. However, no architectural plans or designs for the proposed home have been submitted with the current application, nor have any been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Markle stated that staff recommends denial of the variance request based on the criteria contained in Section 21-97 of the Zoning Ordinance. Benny Zhang, attorney, was present before the Board. He presented The Board of Supervisors for the County of Louisa, Virginia vs. Vallerie Holdings of Virginia, LLC to the Board and staff. He stated that he is bringing this recent opinion forward because it goes into a good narrative of the evolution of the variance as a statutory framework and states that "exceptional," "extraordinary," or "unreasonable" terms have been removed. Mr. Zhang continued stating that, based on the quotation provided in the staff comments, the 2015 amendments should no longer be considered legally binding due to the 2024 opinion. Mr. Zhang stated that the lot unreasonably restricts his client from building his desired home, and a conceptual drawing can be provided. Mr. Zhang states that the current lot unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property in the following ways: 1) Property is nonconforming in width: a long house must be built and not the desired structure Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Page 12 of 16 2) Property acquired in good faith: A dilapidated structure will be demolished 3) A mature tree will be able to be saved 4) Will not be detrimental to neighbors; no way to seek relief except through a variance 5) Unusual lot size and features of lot will need to come in to play and 10 feet is a reasonable request. Mr. Zhang concluded that due to the current case law a variance should be granted. Ms. Forcucci stated that she feels the presented case may supersede Cocharan but does not overrule it. Mr. Zhang offered to go to the ARB for design approval. He then discussed different cases and variance standards, including the 2015 standard that he presented here. She noted that it removes the board's authority unless all uses have been removed from the property owner. Mr. Zhang discussed precedent and future cases. Chair Morgan noted that the current ordinance that City Council has put into place. This is used as the BZAs framework. Mr. Zhang agreed that the City's Ordinance is the most recent and supports the state statute. Mr. Lane stated that unless there is an unreasonable restriction, even with the most recent language, a variance cannot be granted. This does not apply because he can build on this lot. The Board had a brief discussion where they questioned the definition of unreasonable restriction. Mr. Lane stated that he can build on the property therefore there is no unreasonable restriction. Mr. Murphy inquired if the information presented by Mr. Zhang presented anything that staff would like time to review. Ms. Markle stated that staff are always happy to consider new evidence, and our intention is to have the most current ordinance possible and current direction to the Boards. She stated that Cochran argues the standard of all reasonable beneficial uses and Mr. Zhang is stating that this is seeking to lower that standard to approaching confiscation, either way, the standard of unreasonable restriction applies, and staff does not find that a 22.5-foot-wide house is an unreasonable restriction of use of the property. She stated that they would also need to clearly demonstrate Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Page 13 of 16 hardship, and the staff have not received evidence from the applicants’ presentation that clearly demonstrates hardship. Ms. Forcucci questioned visibility for a corner lot & The Board of Zoning Appeals' rights and responsibilities. Mr. Zhang noted that a single-family home is proposed with a shared drive for the neighboring property. There was a short discussion regarding what the applicant would like to be built. Mr. Zhang stated that the express language in the state statute has been replaced. There was a short discussion regarding BZA rights, where it was determined that a variance can only be granted if a hardship can be demonstrated. Staff confirmed that the City Ordinance reads word for word from the State Code Sec. 15.2-2309. There were no further questions for the applicant. The Public Hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Jallo stated that he struggles with the definitions of "unreasonable" and "reasonable." He stated that there is limited case law providing guidance and would consider tabling the application for a clearer definition for reasonable and unreasonable. Chair Morgan stated that there may be a difference of opinion, and she is unsure if the city attorney will be able to provide any clarity. Mr. Lane stated that he believes that they have been distracted from the request and clarified that the request is being made because the property owner wants to build a house closer to the street to save a tree. He stated that it is not unreasonable to build where he is permitted. Mr. Jallo stated that the character of the neighborhood is such that there are no long, thin shotgun houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Murphy stated that there are two houses on Harrison directly behind this property, in this neighborhood, that are long and narrow. Ms. Forcucci stated that the terms have not been redefined with the new case. There was a short discussion regarding site lines and how they would be determined with other departmental city staff; Ms. Forcucci noted her concern that if the variance was approved, it could create problems with building permits, visibility, etc. Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2025 Page 4 of 6 Page 14 of 16  STAFF COMMENT Ms. Markle confirmed that staff are enthusiastic and have a shared goal of having the shed removed and the site improved. She stated that sometimes the code is intentionally vague so that the Board can define reasonableness or unreasonableness based on the facts of each specific case. Ms. Markle stated that she does not believe that the city attorney's office would redefine that word any further than the state code. In regard to the comment about keeping in character with the neighborhood, she noted, other properties in the neighborhood do not maximize every possible square footage of available buildable land; they are smaller homes. In regard to the history of definitions, we go to Merriam-Webster dictionary, and it is the board that has the right to define how “unreasonable” would be defined in this case. Mr. Murphy stated that there is a reasonable use of the property. It might not be Mr. Zhang's client's preference, but there is a reasonable use, and a similar home that exists in the neighborhood can be built here. Moved by Murphy, seconded by Lane, to deny the request for a variance based on the staff report and the Board's belief that there is a reasonable use available without having to grant a variance. Carried 5-0-0 by a roll call vote: Ayes: Morgan, Jallo, Murphy, Forcucci, and Lane UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Meeting Minutes November 5, 2024 Moved by Murphy, seconded by Jallo, to approve the November 5, 2024 minutes as presented. Carried 5-0-0 by a roll call vote: Ayes: Morgan, Jallo, Lane, Murphy, and Forcucci ADJOURNMENT Chair Morgan adjourned the meeting at 4:56 pm. Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2025 Page 5 of 6 Page 15 of 16 Melinda Morgan, Chair - Board of Zoning Appeals Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2025 Page 6 of 6 Page 16 of 16