* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] OKAY, CALL THIS MEETING. WHAT [Board of Zoning Appeals on November 15, 2022. ] IS, IT'S NOVEMBER 15TH ORDER. PAST TIME IS DO A CALL COURT VICE CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS HERE. BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR HERE. BOARD MEMBER ROBINSON. HERE WE HAVE TWO ABSENCES. SO WE STILL HAVE DETERMINATION OF A QUO. YES. YES, SIR. OKAY. SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. MOVE ON. SO AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE KEPT THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS REQUEST ON THE PROPERTY AT 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET. AND, AND AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, MR. WARE COULD, IS IT, IS IT OKAY TO ASK YOU THE UPDATE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE THEN? YEAH, THE UPDATE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UH, IS IT CONTAINED IN YOUR PACKET, UH, WORK SESSION ON NOVEMBER 2ND, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION OFFERED COMMENTS, UH, THE SITUA SITUATION INVOLVES TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS. APPROVAL OF ONE OR MORE VARIANCES WILL AGAIN RESULT IN TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS. FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IF ONE OR MORE VARIANCES WERE GRANTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OBSERVES THAT THE CREATION OF A PROPERTY LINE OF EQUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES WOULD CLARIFY A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAND. USE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. WE ARE YOU GOOD, PLEASE? WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T DO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OR DENIAL. MY APOLOGIES. THAT'S OKAY. BACKING UP, EVERYBODY HAD HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE. SORRY TO READ THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. UM, THANK YOU CONNIE, FOR SENDING THOSE OUT. UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OR TO AMEND THEM? I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT I SECOND MOTION MADE BY MEMBER TAYLOR SECOND AND BY MEMBER ROBINSON. UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IS IN FAVOR SIGNIFY MY STANDING. AYE. AYE. AYE. AND THE OPPOSED NO MOTION IS CARRIED. MINUTES ARE APPROVED. I I CAN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SORRY. MY APOLOGIES FOLKS. SO, UM, IN REOPENING THAT, SO I ONCE AGAIN ASK BASED UPON WHAT WE JUST, WHAT WAS JUST OFFERED BY MR. WARE, IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAD ANY, HAD ANY OTHER QUE HAD ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE ASKED FOR VERIFICATION ABOUT, UH, WHETHER SHE HAD GONE TO, WHETHER SHE HAD GONE TO, UM, THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT. YEAH, THE UTILITY FOR THE SEWER. WERE THEY GONNA LET RIGHT HERE? OKAY. SO LAST MEETING, YOU ALL ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE HARDSHIP FOR THE LLC AND WE HAVE PREPARED A DOCUMENT FOR YOU ALL OUTLINING THE HARDSHIP FROM OUR ATTORNEY. UM, IF I COULD JUST START OFF BY SAYING THAT FIRST, THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL DEFINES A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT OTHER THAN A MOBILE HOME OR MANUFACTURED HOME DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY ONE FAMILY AND NOT LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS IN THE DWELLING UNIT. PRIOR TO THE PURCHASING, THE LLC WAS AWARE THAT THERE WERE TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER THE PURCHASE AND A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED THAT IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE LOT LINE SEPARATING LOT THREE AND FOUR, AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN OVER THERE, ACTUALLY RAN THROUGH THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THAT FACES KIBBLER STREET. IN 2011. THERE WAS A SURVEY THAT ON THE PROPERTY FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ON THE LOTS, BUT THE STRUCTURES WERE NOT PLACED ON THE SURVEY. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SURVEY IN EXHIBIT TWO IN YOUR PACKET THAT I JUST HANDED OUT. SO THAT SURVEY ONLY SHOWS THE LAND BUT NOT THE STRUCTURES. THERE IS NO OTHER RECORDED SURVEY FOR THESE PROPERTIES BESIDES THE ONE OF THE PLAT IN 2011, AND IT WAS WHEN IT WAS FIRST ZONED IN 1947. SO THERE WAS NO IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PRIOR TO THE LLC SURVEY CONDUCTED IN 2022. THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS AND AUTHORIZE UPON APPEAL IN SPECIFIC CASES SUCH VARIANCE FROM THE TERMS OF THE CHAPTER THAT WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. WHEN OWNING [00:05:01] TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE PROVISIONS WILL RESULT IN A NECESSARY HARDSHIP. HOWEVER, THE STATE CODE DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT THE WORD HARDSHIP MEANS IN THE ORDINANCE. IT IS UP TO THE BOARD TO EXAMINE WHICH APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS SHOULD BE APPROVED. THE LLC IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOSS THREE AND FOUR AND WHICH GOES THROUGH THE HOUSE FACING KIBBLER STREET. RIGHT NOW, THE LOT LINE IS IN BETWEEN THE TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS LOCATED AT 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET AND KIBBLER STREET. THE LOT LINE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND KIBBLER STREET. THE USE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES ARE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THESE DWELLINGS ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND CONTAIN NO SHARED LIVING SPACE. THIS HARDSHIP ARE RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE SAID DWELLING IS NOT SHARED GENERALLY BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT IN THE SAME VICINITY GRANTING OF SAID VARIANTS WOULD NOT CHANGE OR BE A DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WOULD NOT CHANGE THESE TWO PROPERTIES. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE ON KIBBLER STREET, UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS INTENDED. THESE TWO HOUSES SHOULD BE LEGALLY SEPARATED ON THEIR OWN SEPARATE LEGAL LOT WITH THEIR OWN SEPARATE LEGAL ADDRESSES. IF YOU WERE TO PUT A FENCE LINE ON THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD NOW GO DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE GOES THROUGH THE HOUSE THAT FACES KILER STREET. NOW, YOU MAY SAY THAT IS RIDICULOUS TO PUT A FENCE THROUGH THROUGH THE HOUSE AND THAT YOU SHOULD MOVE THE FENCE FURTHER DOWN THE LOT FOR ON THE HOUSE, THEN KILL HER STREET. BUT ACTUALLY DOING THIS WOULD UNREASONABLY RESTRICT AND LIMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY OF LOT FOUR. THE LOT DETERMINES THE HARDSHIP NOT ANY OTHER ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY. THE HARDSHIP EXISTS WITH THE LOT AND THE LLC DID NOT CREATE THIS HARDSHIP. A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE NEEDS ITS OWN ADDRESS. CURRENTLY THERE IS ONE ADDRESS FOR THESE PROPERTIES. THE ADDRESS FOR BOTH PROPERTIES IS 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET. THIS ADDRESS OC INCLUDES BOTH DWELLINGS. I THINK THAT LAST TIME THERE WAS MISUNDERSTANDING. THERE ARE NO TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES. SO THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL FINANCE HAS UTILITY BILLS THAT ADDRESS BOTH HOUSES THIS WAY AND THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION WHEN THE TAX OFFICE, THE TAX OFFICE HAS ONE TAX LAW FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT INCLUDES BOTH PROPERTIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE HAS BOTH PROPERTIES UNDER THE SAME ADDRESS. THE POST OFFICE HAS ONE ADDRESS FOR THESE PROPERTIES. IT'S ACTUALLY ONLY ONE MAILBOX. THE GIS SYSTEM, HOWEVER, DOES HAVE THE HOUSE THAT STRADDLES THE LINE OF LOCK THREE AND FOUR AS 6 31 K STREET. SO IF YOU SEARCH THE LOT, UM, IF YOU SEARCH 6 31 K STREET ON THE GIS, THAT HOUSE WILL POP UP. THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE 9 1 1 RECORDS. SO IF SOMEONE CALLS 9 1 1, THEY HAVE TO REASONABLY BE ABLE TO FIND WHERE THIS HOUSE IS LOCATED PHYSICALLY. NOW, BECAUSE THE GIS PUT IN THEIR 6 31 HILLER STREET, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT LEGALLY CHANGES THE ADDRESS. THE HOUSE IS LEGALLY 2 27, SORRY, 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET. SO AT ONE POINT SOMEONE CALLED 9 1 1 AND THEY NEEDED A PHYSICAL ADDRESS, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY IT WAS UPDATED. BUT IT STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NEITHER OWN ADDRESS. THERE IS PRECEDENT THAT THIS BOARD CONSIDER AND EXAMINE APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCES UNDER THE CODE. THE BOARD, HOWEVER, IS TASKED WITH EXAMINING EACH APPLICANT IN ASSESSING WHETHER A STRICT APPLICATION OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD PRODUCE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. AND FOR INSTANCE, IN MAY, 2019, AN APPLICATION FOR ADVANCE WAS REQUESTED, WHICH REFERENCED A 2011 APPROVED APPLICATION TO FOLLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY, WHICH HAD THREE HOUSES AT THAT TIME. ON ONE LOT THEIR APPLICATION, THIS IS THEIR WORDS, STATED THAT THEIR HARDSHIP WAS THAT IT WOULD PROMOTE COMMUNITY STABILITY AND INCREASE THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY TAX AND INCREASE THE VALUE TO THE TOWN AND COUNTY, WHICH BENEFITS ALL PARTIES. IN 2021, AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED AND APPROVED FOR A SUBDIVISION OF TWO PROPERTIES. AND THIS IS THEIR WORDS, SO THAT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS CAN BE SOLD AS SEPARATE PROPERTIES. NOW REMEMBER, THE TOWN DEFINES A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT OTHER THAN A MOBILE HOME OR A MANUFACTURED HOME DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY ONE FAMILY AND NOT LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS ANOTHER DWELLING UNIT. EACH OF THESE APPLICANTS CAN AFFORD THIS BOARD WITH THEIR SPECIFIC CAR SHIFT REQUESTING A VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT MEET SOME ASPECT OF THE CODE, WHETHER IT BE SETBACKS, LOTS, SQUARE FOOTAGE, FRONTAGE. AND THE BOARD DECIDED THAT ALLOWING ONE HOUSE ON ONE LOT WAS THE BEST SOLUTION. SO THIS BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER SAID VARIANCE REQUESTS. A VARIANCE IS NOT A LAW CHANGE, IT IS AN EXEMPTION DUE TO A HARDSHIP. NOW, THE STATE CODE DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT THE WORD HARDSHIP IS, BUT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE THE SCREEN, THE LOT LINE GOES THROUGH THE HOUSE. THIS RE UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE [00:10:01] INTENDED USE OF SAID PROPERTY. EACH HOUSE NEEDS ITS OWN ADDRESS AND SHOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED. THANK YOU. UM, I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR TOWN ATTORNEY THAT DAY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ THIS? I HAVE NOT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I'M OBVIOUSLY NON . UM, I WOULD JUST BE CURIOUS WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE, UM, ON THE, DID YOU GET ONE? I HANDED THEM TO CONNIE. THIS SHOULD BE I PRINTED NINE. SO YEAH, GIVEN THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, IT'S THE TOP ONE. IF YOU GRAB THAT, GIVEN THE LEGAL COMMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE, DO YOU DIFFER WITH ANY OF THE LEGAL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE? I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW IT. HE'S GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. OKAY, LET ME, LET ME, LET ME, I GUESS I SHOULD STATE WHAT I THINK MY ROLE IS. I'M SORRY, PLEASE. WHICH IS, UH, IS TO SUPPORT TOWN STAFF AND, UH, AND THE INTEREST OF THE TOWN FUNDAMENTALLY IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENFORCING THE ZONING ORDINANCE UNLESS THIS BODY FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS MET THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE. OKAY. UM, BUT, BUT AGAIN, FUNDAMENTALLY I THINK MY ROLE, UH, AS TOWN ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL IS UPHOLDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE TOWN. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH. SO IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, MR. WARE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OBSERVED THAT THE CREATION OF A PROPERTY LINE OF EQUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO, THE TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES WOULD CLARIFY A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAND USE. BUT DOES IT, AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THIS SHOULD GIVE THE ANSWER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IT, IS THIS, IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAYING THEY RECOMMEND THAT THIS BE PERMITTED? OR ARE THEY JUST GIVING UP, MAKING A BLANKET STATEMENT THAT THEY'RE JUST MAKING A STATEMENT? IF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE GRANTED THAT, THAT THE CREATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD CLARIFY A PRINCIPLE, FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAND USE FOR AS A PLANNING COMMISSION USE IT. OKAY. AND JUST SO I'M ON THE SAME PAGE HERE AND I APOLOGIZE BEING REDUNDANT. SO YOU'RE ASKING, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE SO THAT THE TWO HOUSES CAN BE ON TWO SEPARATE, HAVE TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES, UM, AM I RIGHT SO FAR TO THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? SO THAT WAY THEY'RE NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED AND SO EACH HOUSE WOULD HAVE ITS OWN LOT AND ITS OWN SEPARATE LEGAL ADDRESS. SO WHICH WOULD BE 2 25 7 AND 6 31 KILEY. GOTCHA. SO IF I, WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT HERE, SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY MM-HMM. , IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE BE ADJUSTED TO GO RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THAT? EXACTLY. OKAY. AND RIGHT NOW IT GOES PRETTY MUCH THROUGH HERE. GOTCHA, GOTCHA. OKAY. UM, I DID WANT TO ASK, AND, AND IF THIS WAS ASKED AT THE LAST ONE, I APOLOGIZE. I, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO BE FAIR. MM-HMM. DID, WHEN YOU PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY LINE WENT THROUGH WHERE IT DOES? NO, WHEN THE LLC PURCHASED IT, WE KNEW THAT THERE WERE TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE SUMMER OF 2022 THAT WE REALIZED THAT THE LOT WENT THROUGH THE HOUSE ON KILER STREET AND THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO DO A SURVEY WHILE PURCHASING. SOME THINGS ARE UNFORESEEN AND THE HARDSHIP, IT EXISTS WITH THE LOT, BUT NOT WITH THE LOT. SORRY, WITH THE HOUSE, THE LLC DID NOT CREATE THE HARDSHIP. IT EXISTS WITH THE LAND. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF DURING THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE, LIKE THERE'S A STUDY PERIOD, IF DURING THAT STUDY PERIOD A SURVEY WAS THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM ONE, THERE WAS NO SURVEY CONDUCTED PRIOR TO PURCHASE. I, AGAIN, THIS I, I DON'T KNOW THE LAW, BUT ONLY BECAUSE, UM, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, THAT THEY CAN ONLY DO, AND PLEASE SOMEBODY CORRECT ME PLEASE, IF YOU THINK, IF YOU KNOW I'M WRONG, IS THAT THEY CAN ONLY DO A SURVEY ON, BUT WHAT THE PERSON WHO LEGALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. NO. ALL RIGHT. UM, THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE THAT I HAD WAS, I DON'T IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT FROM, WAS IT 1940? SOMEWHERE 47? UM, DID, DID WE HAVE ZONING ? OH, I'M SORRY. YEAH. UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW MINUS [00:15:01] THAT IF THE APPLICANT, WE STILL HAD DIRT RED, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE KNOWN WITHOUT THAT, THAT THAT LINE WENT THROUGH THE HOUSE. SO I, YOU KNOW, MINUS POSSIBLY. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I'M BEING DUPED HERE. I I, I, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. I'M JUST WONDER THREE PEOPLE HERE. SO, BUT, UM, I DON'T, IF I'M CHAIRING THE MEETING, AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION OR AM I NOT? WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CLOSE IT AND TALK ABOUT IT. OH, SORRY. THANK YOU. FIRST, FIRST, ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO PUBLIC, AND THEN DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD? HEY, THANK YOU CONNIE. MM-HMM. , JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, I, I'M A SCHOOL TEACHER. I HANG OUT WITH FIVE TO 11 YEAR OLDS. . ALL RIGHT. ALRIGHT. UM, SO CAN I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW? SO, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. UM, SO AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION SINCE I'M RUNNING THE MEETING? UM, TYPICALLY YOU CAN ASK FOR A MOTION. OKAY. NO, THEN YOU KNOW WHAT? I'LL DO THAT. I WANT, I WANT DO THE RIGHT THING HERE. SO WE'VE HEARD, WE'VE HEARD, UM, I JUST CALLED A QUESTION. DOES IT MAY HAVE A MOTION OR NOT. SO I HAVEN'T READ THIS, IT WAS NOW HANDED TO ME. UH, SO, UM, I WOULD WANT TO READ THIS SOMETHING. I'M SORRY, I SAID I WOULD WANT TO READ THIS. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS GOING TO BE TIME FOR THAT. YEAH, YEAH'S THE, SHE, SHE READ MOST OF IT AND THE OLD, THE OLD PLATS ARE NEW INFORMATION. UM, MOST OF THE OTHER STUFF IS JUST LEGAL SPEAK FOR BACKING UP THAT YES, WE CAN MAKE THE DECISION. OKAY. YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THEN, SO WHAT WE'D HAVE TO DO NOW IS MAKE A MOTION TO DENY OR ACCEPT, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND JUST, UH, FOR A POINT YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION AS VICE CHAIR. SO, OKAY. I, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED UPON WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A STATED HARDSHIP AND BASED UPON WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE APPLICANT PURCHASING THE, THE PROPERTY AND GOOD FAITH AS WHAT, AS SHE HAS STATED TO THE BOARD. AND IF THERE IS NO SECOND, THEN THE MOTION DIES. THIS WILL BE IT HAVING NO SECOND. THE MOTION DIES. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? UM, OR DO YOU WISH TO HAVE MORE TIME TO READ THAT? DO YOU NEED MORE TIME? NO, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY THE VARIANCE. SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION TO DENY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU STATE YOUR REASONS WHY WE NEED THAT? FOR THE MOTION? WHY I SECOND IT? NO, WHY, WHY YOU'RE DENYING IT. WHAT ARE YOUR REASON, YOUR FACTS FOR DENYING IT? OKAY. I MAKE MOTION TO DENY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE HARDSHIP IS SELF-CREATED. BUYING A PROPERTY WITHOUT A SURVEY IS NOT SMART, BUT RELIANCE ON ERRONEOUS CORNERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE USED TO GET A VARIANCE, BUT SIMPLY NOT EVEN ATTEMPTING TO FIND THE INFORMATION MAKES IT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. I WOULD THINK. WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY ASK YOU IS, DO YOU WANT A SURVEY? IT COSTS LIKE $500 OR SOMETHING. AND THAT'S PART OF THAT THING. IF ANYTHING'S FOUND TO BE WRONG, THEN YOU CAN STILL BACK OUT OF THE DEAL HALF THE TIME. SO TO NOT DO THE SURVEY SEEMS SELF CREATIVE. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE HAVE A SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVING NO DISCUSSION? UH, CONNIE, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL A ROLL CALL? MM-HMM. , [00:20:01] VICE CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS. OKAY, SO I VOTE, I VOTE AGAINST, I VOTE NO AGAINST, I VOTE NO TO THE MOTION. MM-HMM. TO DENY? CORRECT. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER ROBINSON. FOUR. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR. FOUR. MM-HMM. . NOW, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE DON'T HAVE THREE. WE DON'T HAVE THREE. SO I I DON'T, WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO IT'S TWO OUT OF THE THREE. NO, THREE OUTTA FIVE JUST GOTTA BE THREE OUT OF, ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE IN RICHMOND. I COULD BE WRONG, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT ACCORDING TO THAT INSANE THING THAT I READ AND THAT WE ALL READ, IT HAS TO BE THREE OUTTA FIVE. IT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE BOARD, NOT THE BOARD PRESENT. SO, OKAY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I'M AT A LOSS . OKAY. SO THAT MOTION THEN FAILS AS WELL BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A FORM. SO, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT MOVES FORWARD. ? UM, I COULD BE WRONG AGAIN, BUT I THINK DOES IT THEN, IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, DOES IT KICK BACK NOT TO, NOT TO KEEP PLAYING THIS GAME? DOES IT KICK BACK TO THE STAFF AND THEN TO THE STAFF MAKES NO DETERMINATION. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FOR OR AGAINST IT. THEY'RE ONLY TO ADVISE. WOULD THE TOWN COUNCIL AGAIN, DOES IT OR WOULD THE TOWN COUNCIL HAVE TO CIRCUIT COURT? THE, THE TOWN COUNCIL HAS NO, NO ROLE IN THIS. MM-HMM. THE CIRCUIT COURT. YES. I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S STILL BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT I, I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I'VE NOT BEEN TO THOSE TRAINING CLASSES. I HAVEN'T NO CODE, RIGHT. WE NEED, WE NEED THREE, BUT, BUT WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP AT THIS POINT? DOES IT SAY ? THAT I DO NOT REMEMBER. I WILL DIG. I BELIEVE THAT AT THIS POINT IT STAYS WITH THE ORIGINAL. I COULD BE WRONG. IT STAYS WITH THE ORIGINAL DECISION, NOT THE DECISION, BUT THE, IT, IT WOULD IN LIKE AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE THE DECISION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE. BUT IN THIS CASE, NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE VARIANCE. ONLY WE GIVE THE VARIANCE. SO. OKAY. IT'S BASICALLY LIKE YOU'RE THINKING LIKE HUNG JURY BASICALLY. SO IT DEFAULTS TO A POSITION. BUT, SO THEN WOULD THAT BE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT? THEY CAN ONLY APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT ON YOUR DECISION. MM-HMM. YET IF THEY DISAGREE WITH OUR DECISION, NOT IF THERE'S NO DECISION. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL? A LITTLE. UM, SO IS THIS, IS THIS KICKING YOU BACK TO DECEMBER MEETING OR IS IT JUST THE, THE NEXT STEP IS A POSSIBLE 30 DAY, UM, APPEAL IF LLC CHOOSES, CAN WE CALL A SPECIAL MEETING? LIKE, CAN WE CALL A SO WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE HERE. UM, YEAH, WE CAN TRY . I MEAN WE'VE GOT SEVERAL OTHER MEETINGS. THERE'S, THERE'S, WE'RE CLOSED TWO DAYS NEXT WEEK. NO, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT JUST SENT ME LIKE THAT. WELL, SOMEBODY AGAIN, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. PLEASE. I, IT APPEARS THAT THE OPTIONS ARE FOR THE APPLICANT TO APPEAL IT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. NO, NO, BECAUSE THERE'S NO DECISION. OH. OH. OR FOR US, ALL THE MOTIONS FAIL OR FOR, OKAY. SO THEN FOR US TO BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN THE NEXT TIME WE HAVE A SCHEDULED MEETING BECAUSE NOTHING, SO YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE TONIGHT. CORRECT. SO I, I GUESS IT CONTINUES TO ANOTHER MEETING UNTIL THERE'S QUORUM. I MEAN, UNTIL THERE'S A FULL BOARD. ACTUALLY, LOGICALLY THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK. OKAY. IS THAT WE EITHER CALL ANOTHER MEETING AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, BUT I MEAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE TIME. WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE, WE HAVE TO NOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF SURE. I GOT THAT. BUT OUR NEXT, WE, THE NEXT MEETING IS IN DECEMBER. THE, UM, HERE I HAVE IT HERE. I THE THIRD. TUESDAY BE THE 20TH OF DECEMBER. DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA BE OUT OF TOWN THEN? I WILL, I'LL BE HERE. I I HAVE IT DOWN. I'LL BE HERE. WE'LL [00:25:01] BE 20TH DECEMBER TWENTIETHS A TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20TH. I'LL BE HERE. OKAY. WELL WE KNOW THE THREE OF US WILL BE HERE. SOUNDS GOOD. I'LL BE HERE ANYWAY. AND WE WILL TRY TO GET THE OTHER TWO HERE. AND ALL I CAN DO IS APOLOGIZE TO THERE WE ARE. SO WE'LL NEED A MOTION TO MOVE IT TO THE NEXT DATE. I MOTION TO POSTPONE THE DECISION UNTIL WE HAVE AT LEAST FOUR, IF NOT A FULL ZONING BOARD ON DECEMBER 20TH. MAY 2ND. MOTION ON THE BOARD TO MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO MOVE THIS SITUATION TO THE NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 20TH, 7:00 PM HERE AT TOWN HALL. SECONDED BY CODY TAYLOR. ANY DISCUSSION? HAVING NONE. ALL ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY STATING I AYE. ANY PUBLIC STATING? NO. HAVING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE NEXT ONE WE HAVE REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OR DO I READ IT FIRST? I, I WILL, YEAH. READ IT. HAVE MR WE EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENT AND THEN YOU CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU MR. WE PLEASE. VARIANCE APPLICATION 22 4 42 SUBMITTED BY ANGELA BAKER OR VARIANCE FROM TOWN CODE CHAPTER 1 75 14 PERTAINING TO A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 15 WINE STREET IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 20 A 9 4 26. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE R ONE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE VARIANCE WOULD EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THE APPLICANT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 18 FEET ACQUIRED FRONT BACK SET FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 35 FEET AND THE APPLICANT HAS A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IS TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO OF A FRONT PORCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UM, TO THAT FOR OR AGAINST THAT, BUT I, EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE, I PUT IN THE APPLICATION. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS OR ANY COMMENTS FOR YOU? BOARD, UH, GOING OVER THE MATERIAL THAT YOU PROVIDED? UH, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A PORCH? MM-HMM. . UM, YOU STATED SOMETHING ABOUT THE BACKYARD BEING VERY HILLY. I LOOKED AT THE PICTURES. UM, IS THE WHOLE BACKYARD HILLY OR DOES IT GO DOWN AND THEN FLATTEN? IT'S UH, THE BACK, THE BOTTOM FLATTENS A LITTLE, BUT IT'S VERY STRAIGHT DOWN AND THEN IT KIND OF EVENS OUT AT THE BOTTOM. IT WOULD BE AN AWESOME SLED RIDING HILL. IT IS. ALL NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS LOVE IT. I WENT AND VISITED WITH IN THE, IN THE FORMS YOU STATED THAT THE, THE TOWN ADDED MORE TO THE FRONT YARD CUZ THEY PUT IT IN CURB AND GUTTER AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, YOU, YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT YOU NOW HAVE MORE SPACE IN THE FRONT. YOU DO REALIZE THAT YOUR PROPERTY DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXTEND BY THAT MUCH? YES. OKAY. YES. SO YOU'D STILL BE WITHIN THE ZONE AND MAKING AN EVEN GREATER IMPACT INTO THE, THE ALREADY ESTABLISHED SETBACK. UM, HAVE YOU PURSUED ANY OTHER OPTIONS FOR ALLEVIATING THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE WITH IT? BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT KIDS AND HAVING THEM ON THE PORCH. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED FENCING THE FRONT YARD, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO. I MEAN, WHEN WE GOT THE, THE BACKYARD FENCED, THE FRONT YARD WAS, THEY SAID NO TO THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE THE, THE YARD WAS TOO SMALL. TO FENCE? YES. AND THAT WAS IN 2003, THE TOWN TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T FENCE IT? YES. THE, THE CONTRACTOR THAT WENT OUT AND DID THE FENCE IN THE BACKYARD, THEY ACTUALLY ASKED ABOUT THAT TOO BECAUSE THE, THE, THE BACKYARD IS SO, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHT DOWN AND THEY SAID NO, THE BACKYARD WOULD BE FINE, BUT NOT THE FRONT. I THE FRONT YARD COULDN'T BE FENCED IN. THAT'S WHAT THEY, THAT'S WHAT THE CONTRACTOR TOLD ME. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. YOU CAN HAVE A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD NO HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET. BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE IT. CAUSE I GOT A FIVE FOOT FENCE, SO THAT MAY, YEAH, IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET. YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY RESTRICTION IN THE TOWN REGARDING THE DEPTH OF YOUR FRONT YARD FOR FENCING IT. SO HAVING SAID THAT, DO, [00:30:01] DO THEY HAVE THEIR BUYER, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT A FENCE UP TO OR BEHIND THIS? UP TO THEIR PROPERTY? BASICALLY UP TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE. WITH A ZONING PERMIT? WITH A ZONING PERMIT. IF IT, UH, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT A CORNER LOT. SO AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT VISION OF TRAFFIC, THEY COULD INSTALL A FOUR FOOT HIGH MAXIMUM FENCE IN THE FRONT. SORRY, YOU WERE SAYING SOMETHING. I JUST SAID THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANT AT THIS POINT CUZ IT'S LITERALLY HALFWAY THROUGH WHAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S OUR YARD. I, I UNDERSTAND, UM, IN SETTING A SAW MY THOUGHTS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR PROPERTY. MM-HMM. AND WHAT I SPENT THREE DAYS BEING TRAINED ON RICHMOND. UM, IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE, THEN THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. UM, THAT THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE, AND THIS ISN'T ANYBODY'S FAULT, BUT IF I, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THE HOUSE IS ALREADY 10 FEET INTO THE VARIANCE. MM-HMM. . OH YEAH. THAT'S HOW IT WAS. I MEAN THAT'S HOW IT WAS WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. THIS IS WHAT, HOW OLD IS THIS PLACE? 98. ISN'T THAT WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS BUILT IN 1974. COMPLETELY FOUR. THANK GOD. WHAT? OKAY. THEY, THEY BUILT IT RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE SLOPE IN THE BACK. MORE THAN LIKELY. SO THEY'RE RESTRICTED. SO THEN THEY COME INTO THE DESIGN. OKAY. SO APPARENTLY THE STREET WITH RIGHT AWAY WAS CHANGED. UH, WHEN WE DUG INTO IT, THE STREET WIDTH WAS AT 50 FEET AT ONE TIME. OKAY. UH, AND THE HOUSES WERE SET ON THE RESTRICTION LINE AT THAT TIME. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. WHEN WE DID THE RESEARCH THAT, UH, HOUSES WAS BUILT ON THE RESTRICTION LINE IN THE STREET WITH, AT THAT TIME, UH, WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS NOT 60 FEET. I DON'T KNOW WHAT POINT IF THE, UH, HOUSES WERE SOLD AND RESIDENCE MOVED IN OR THAT WAS DONE DURING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. SOME HOUSES WERE PUT WITH THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY LINE, CORRECT ME. BUT THIS IS NOT IN THE SUBDIVISION IS IT? OR THIS ISN'T A, LIKE AN HOA OR ANYTHING, IS IT? NO. OKAY. IT'S ON THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. OKAY. SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'RE BASICALLY ASKING TO GO ABOUT THREE FEET OUT FROM WHERE THE, THIS FRONT STOOP IS. WHERE THE FRONT STOOP IS. OKAY. OH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'M SORRY. YOU NEED TO CLOSE THE I'M THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. THANK YOU FOR THE COUNCIL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IF NOT, UM, WE'LL CALL A QUESTION. IT IS THEIR MOTION. SO, D SUGGESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT I REMEMBER READING IT. IS THAT, WHERE IS THE OPINION RIGHT HERE? THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO IT. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE A . YOU MAY ONE READ STAFF COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. STAFF COMMENTS. THE BOARD NEEDS TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA IN ORDER TO ISSUE THE VARIANCE THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CHAPTER WOULD PRODUCE UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS CONSTITUTES A HARDSHIP. THAT SUCH HARDSHIP IS NOT SHARED GENERALLY BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND THE SAME VICINITY IN THE STAFF. SAY THERE APPEARS TO BE A TOPOGRAPHIC, THERE APPEARS TO BE TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS TO THIS SLOT IN PARTICULAR TOPOGRAPHY IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ZONE. THEN THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL [00:35:01] 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. THE BOARD DOES NOT. AND THIS STAFF COMMENT IS THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION. STAFF DOES NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THIS VARIANCE. SO WITH VARIANCES, WE SHOULD ONLY BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE IN ORDER FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL TO REACH PARODY WITH THE PARCELS AROUND IT. WE CAN'T GRANT A VARIANCE LEGALLY TO GIVE THIS PARCEL SOMETHING THAT THE OTHER PARCELS AROUND IT DON'T HAVE WITHOUT ALSO GETTING A VARIANCE. SO IF YOU GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION, MOST OF THE HOMES ARE ROUGHLY BUILT THE SAME TIME. MOST OF THEM HAVE STOOPS, IF NOT ALL OF THEM. IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PORCH, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE OTHER HOMEOWNERS ASKING FOR THE SAME VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME, THE SAME SITUATION, SAME BASIC ROAD FRONTAGE. NOW YES, THE BACKYARDS ARE DIFFERENT ON ALL OF 'EM CUZ THIS IS A VERY LONG LOT AND THE OTHERS ARE NOT. THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT. SO WHAT YOU'D HAVE IS THAT, AND THEN THE, THE FACT THAT A FENCE CAN BE PUT IN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT AS DESIRABLE, IS AN ALTERNATIVE. IS AN ALTERNATIVE. AND IF THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE THEN IT CAN'T BE UNREASONABLY RESTRICTED. SO LEGALLY THERE'S ALMOST NOTHING WE CAN DO. I HAVE THE SAME INTERPRETATION. YES. SO IS THERE A MOTION YOU WANNA DO THIS? SURE. JUST MAKE SURE AND STATE YOUR REASONS IN THE MOTION. YES, EXACTLY. PLEASE. VERY CLEARLY WHY I AM MOVE IT TO DENY THE VARIANT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION OF A FENCE. AND ALSO AREAS OR PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE ALL OF LIKE, KIND WITH LIKE STOOPS. AND ALLOWING ONE WOULD ALLOW ALL POTENTIALLY MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY THE VARIANCE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HAVING A DISCUSSION? UH, CON WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? MM-HMM BOARD MEMBER ROBINSON FOR BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR FOR VICE CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS FOR THIS. STINKS. YEAH, HE DOES THIS. OKAY. OKAY. UH, MOTION, UH, QUESTIONNAIRES AND DENIED. UM, ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT IS NOT BEING, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJO? I MOVE TO ADJOURN THE READING. I'LL SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL FAVOR TO ADJOURN, SAY AYE. OPPOS. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.