[00:00:01]
I CALL THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING TO ORDER IN ON, UM, DECEMBER 20TH, 2022 AT 7:00 PM UM, I'LL ASK MS. POTTER FOR A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
SHE IS ABSENT AND I DON'T HAVE YOUR NAME ON HERE.
MS. ERIN HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
WE'LL START WITH FIRST LOOKING AT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE LAST MEETING, UM, ON NOVEMBER 15TH, 2022.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION.
I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE MINUTES.
THE CHAIRMAN BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION.
AND THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER CORRECTION THAT YOU, UM, I LISTED YOU AS THE CHAIRMAN VERSUS VICE CHAIRMAN, SO I'VE CHANGED THAT AS WELL.
SO THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED IN THE MINUTES.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? ANY DISCUSSION, ANY DISCUSSION? UH, ALL VOTE IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
SO WE ARE HERE, UM, TO CONTINUE, UM, WITH A PREVIOUS DISCUSSED MATTER.
UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, BUT IT IS A CONTINUATION FOR DISCUSSION FOR THE VARIANCE APPLICATION 2239 8.
UM, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK THE STAFF TO REVIEW THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE.
THE APPLICATION IS FOR VARIANCE, UH, APPLICATION NUMBER 22 0 3 98, SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY CONNECTIONS LLC FOR MULTIPLE FULL VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE OF CHAPTER 1 75.
UH, WE HAD THE PREVIOUS MEETING IN OCTOBER, WHICH WAS CONTINUED INTO NOVEMBER, UH, WHICH WAS, WAS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLY PART OF NOVEMBER WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THE MEETING IN NOVEMBER 15TH WAS CONTINUED TO TONIGHT PART OF DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A RECOMMENDATION IN THEIR NOVEMBER MEETING.
IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PACKAGE, THEY DID SUBMIT A RECOMMENDATION, UH, FROM A PLANNING, UH, COMMISSION COMMENT STATED, FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IF ONE OR MORE VARIANCES WERE, WERE TO BE 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.
ON NOVEMBER 15TH, THE APPLICANT, UH, SUBMITTED, UH, AN ADJUSTED PLAT WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, UH, PART OF YOUR, UH, ON THE VARIANCES.
IF WE LOOK AT THE, UH, SCREEN WITH THE NEW ALL THIS TO WORK, UH, THE CURRENT PROPERTY LINE RUNS APPROXIMATELY THERE THROUGH THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING ON THIS LOT, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE UP BETWEEN THE TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES, WHICH IS THE BOLD DARK LINE ON YOUR PLAT.
UH, SO WITH THE CREATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, THE NEW PLAT HAS THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AT 2 2 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET AND THE HOUSE ON, UH, KILER STREET.
IT'S 5.3 FEET OFF OF EACH STRUCTURE WITH THE MOVE, UH, WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, UH, LOT FOUR, WHICH IS THE KIPLER STREET ADDRESS, THAT STRUCTURE AND LOT WOULD BE CONFORMING AND THE LOT ON EAST SEVENTH STREET, 2 25 WOULD STILL REMAIN NONCONFORMING WITH
[00:05:01]
A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.ANY QUESTIONS? SO INSTEAD OF, UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD, SO INSTEAD OF TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS, YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE, CORRECT? EACH SIDE OF THREE, YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TWO.
WELL, YOU HAVE A VACANT LOT, LOT, UH, PART FIVE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT.
SO YOU HAVE TWO LOT THREE AND LOT FOUR CURRENTLY ARE NON-CONFORMING LOTS AT THE VERY, WITH EACH, WITH A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
ON LOT THREE, A PORTION OF A STRUCTURE, UH, ON LOT FOUR A ALSO IS ON THAT, AND A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE IS ON LOT FOUR.
SO THOSE TWO LOTS, THREE AND FOUR FOUR ARE NON-CONFORMING.
LOTS WITH NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES.
ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINE EQUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES WOULD MAKE LOT FOUR CONFORMING WITH A CONFORMING STRUCTURE, BUT LOT THREE WOULD REMAIN NON-CONFORMING WITH A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALSO WAS IN YOUR PACKETS THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, WITH SOME MATERIAL.
UH, I HOPE THAT YOU REVIEWED IN THE MEANTIME, SINCE THE LAST MEETING WITH, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THE FACT THAT THEY SUBMITTED THAT WE HAVE, UH, THERE FOR YOU TO REVIEW.
I DO BELIEVE THE LAST TIME THAT WE WERE HERE, WE ASKED THEM TO CHECK IN WITH THE SEWER COMPANY.
DID WE HAVE ANY RESULTS FROM THAT, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC WORK STANDPOINT? UM, PART OF YES, WE DID.
SO, UH, ONE THING I WANNA BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AND PART OF YOUR PACKAGE, UH, WERE THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED.
UH, TOWN CODE 1 75, 1 39
UH, NUMBER ONE, WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER CAN SHOW THAT HIS PROPERTY WAS INQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH AND WHEREBY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS SIZE OR SHAPE OF A SPECIFIC PROPERTY, PIECE OF PROPERTY AT THE TIME, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER, OR WHEREBY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL TELEGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OR CONDITION OF THE PIECE OF PROPERTY OR THE CONDITION, SITUATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT THERE.
TWO, THE STRICT APPLICATION OF TERMS OF CHAPTER WOULD EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, SO THE TERMINATION, UH, FOR THE VARIANCES IS ON THE LOT, BUT WE DID LOOK INTO, UH, THE WATER AND SEWER QUESTION.
UH, 1 34, 38, UH, D SEPARATE BUILDINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH SEPARATE WATER METERS AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE CONNECTION OF ONE OR MORE BUILDINGS TO THE SAME METER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED EXCEPT BY SPECIAL PERMISSION.
IF YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION, YOU CAN READ THAT TOO, BUT THE VARIANCES IS FOR THE LOT.
UM, IS THAT EVEN RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING? WELL, WE ASKED HER PREVIOUSLY TO PROVIDE IT AS A POSSIBLE HARDSHIP, BUT THIS PROVES THAT IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP.
SO IT DOES HELP US IN DETERMINING OUR DECISION.
BUT ISN'T, BUT ISN'T, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE.
ISN'T THE, ISN'T THE DETERMINATION OF THE HARDSHIP BASED UPON THE, THE SURVEY IDENTIFYING THAT IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT LOTS INSTEAD OF ONE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WATER.
IT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE.
I THINK WE ASKED BECAUSE SHE CLAIMED A HARDSHIP STATING THAT IT WOULD BE VERY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO UTILIZE BOTH PROPERTIES CORRECTLY WITHOUT SEPARATING THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE.
BUT WE COULD ONLY DO THAT IF THE PROPERTIES WERE
[00:10:01]
SEPARATE.BUT THIS HERE STATES THAT THEY HAVE SEPARATE METERS.
SO ALSO UNDER 1 34, A B PERMITS FOR THE USE OF WATER WILL NOT BE GRANTED TO A BLOCK OF STORES, SHOPS, TENEMENTS OR ROOMS OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES OR FAMILIES USING WATER THROUGH THE SAME METER.
UNLESS THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MADE BY THE LANDLORD OR AGENT OF SUCH PREMISES, AND ALL RENTS AND BILLS FOR WATER ARE TO BE CHARGED AND COLLECTED TO HIM FROM HIM OR HIS AGENT.
SO IT CAN BE DONE AS LONG AS THEY'RE RENTING THE PROPERTIES.
IT CAN'T BE DONE IF THEY WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTIES SEPARATELY.
BUT IF THEY WERE TO OWN THEM AND RENT THEM OUT, THEN THE COMMON LANDLORD COULD DO IT.
SO IT, IT, THAT'S WHY THIS IS KIND OF IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S DETERMINING THE HARDSHIP.
HOW MUCH OF A HARDSHIP IS IT REALLY IS THE HARDSHIP.
PART OF THE BARRINGS IS, UH, THE VARIANCE IS, IS FOR THE LOT THAT'S UNDER YOUR CONSIDERATION IS THE LOT CORRECT.
BUT IN ORDER FOR US TO GRANT IT, IT MUST BE A HARDSHIP LEGALLY BY STATE CODE, NOT THE TOWN CODE, BUT STATE CODE SUPERSEDES TOWN CODE.
SO THERE MUST BE A HARDSHIP SHOWN BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE BY THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S, WHICH IS WHY I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED TO AND DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR TOWN ATTORNEY IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.
HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON, MAN? HE WAS DISAPPOINTED.
NOW, HERE'S WHERE I, I DON'T WANT TO, AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR TOWN ATTORNEY'S ROLE IS WITH RESPECT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, SO I, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT KNOWING THAT.
UM, AND IF IT IS, IF IT IS NO ROLE, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE MINUTES THAT YOU JUST APPROVED MM-HMM.
UM, SO GEORGE'S ROLE HERE, UM, IS THE, HIS ROLE AS WELL, STAFF MEMBERS, UM, THE BZA WOULD NEED TO HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL, LEGAL COUNSEL.
AND THAT, CAN WE OPEN THE FLOOR TO ARGUMENT YOU ANY MORE QUESTIONS? DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THAT'S WHAT YOU WELL, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK, WHICH I THINK THEY WANT TO DO.
YEAH, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
I'M AN ATTORNEY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
AND, UH, EMILY MINNICK, THE MANAGER FOR THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AS WELL.
UM, I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE LAST TIME, A LETTER THAT I HAD DRAFTED TOGETHER WITH SOME, SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION HERE.
OF COURSE, I UNDERSTAND, AND OBVIOUSLY THE BOARD IS CONSIDERED THIS MATTER AT LENGTH ALREADY.
UM, UH, JUST TO, BUT FOR, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, AS, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE, UH, THE SCREEN UP THERE, THIS, THIS MATTER REALLY CONCERNS THE THREE LOTS, UM, THAT ARE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF EAST SEVENTH STREET IN KINDLER STREET.
UM, THOSE ARE LOTS, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, UH, OF THE CD BINS SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS CREATED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 3RD, 1947.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND AS, UH, THE TOWN STAFF HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED, THERE ARE TWO HOUSES CURRENTLY SITUATED.
SO BASICALLY THE, THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE ISSUED ARE, ARE THE TWO NORTHERN ONES.
THE SOUTHERN MOST LOT, WHICH IS, IS SHOWN THERE, BUT IS NOT HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD, IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE.
THAT'S A VACANT LOT, UH, TO WHICH NO CHANGE IS BEING REQUESTED.
SO REALLY THE NORTHERN TWO, WHICH ARE LOTS, THREE AND FOUR ARE THE, UH, THE IMPORTANT ONES FOR THESE CONSIDERATIONS.
I CAN MAKE THAT BIGGER IF IT'S NOT GONNA DIS YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PERFECT.
SO WE HAVE HERE OBVIOUSLY THAT THE PLATFORM, MR. BROGAN, UH, WHICH WAS PREPARED IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, UH, SHOWS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE LINE, UM, WHICH IS THE, THAT DOTTED LINE TOWARD THE BOTTOM WITH THE LOT LINE TO BE VACATED IN, IN PARENTHESES OFF TO THE LEFT.
SO THAT DOTTED LINE IS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE TWO OR OF THE LOT, BUT OF THE LINE RATHER BETWEEN LOTS THREE AND FOUR, JUST AS A MATTER, I I THINK EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHY WE'RE HERE.
UM, BUT THE, THE AGENDA ACTUALLY IS, IS SOMEWHAT INACCURATE BECAUSE IT STATES THAT THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SUBDIVIDE A SINGLE PARCEL UPON WHICH TWO DWELLS ARE LOCATED INTO TWO PARCELS.
UM, THE AGENDA ALSO REFERENCES THAT THIS ONLY HAS ONE TAX MAP NUMBER.
IN REALITY, THERE HAVE BEEN THESE THREE PARCELS, SLOTS, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, UM, HERE FOR ABOUT 75 YEARS SINCE 1947 WHEN THESE WERE APPROVED.
EACH OF THEM ALSO HAS ITS OWN TAX MAP NUMBER.
SO IF, IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD, UH, THERE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THREE LOTS, JUST WITH LOTS THREE AND FOUR BEING ADJUSTED TO EACH CONTAIN ONE DWELLING INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SITUATION WHERE LOT THREE ESSENTIALLY CONTAINS ONE AND A HALF DWELLINGS AND LOTS FOUR CONTAINS THE OTHER
[00:15:01]
HALF OF THE SECOND DWELLING.UM, I I, IN REVIEWING THE, UH, THE, UH, DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD HAD AT THE LAST MEETING, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT THIS COULD BE A, A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP ON THE PART OF MY CLIENT, WHICH WOULD, UH, IN ESSENCE DEFEAT ITS APPLICATION.
OUR CONTENTION IS THAT THIS IS NOT A, A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
UM, MY CLIENT PURCHASED THESE LOTS, UH, EARLIER THIS YEAR, DID NOT CREATE THE BOUNDARY LINES IN THE, IN THIS CURRENT LOCATION.
UM, AGAIN, THOSE HAD BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 1947, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OWNERS AGO, BUT A LOT.
UM, SO WHILE MY CLIENT WAS, WAS UNAWARE OF THE PRECISE LOCATION OF THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES, IT DID NOT CREATE THE SITUATION SIMPLY BY NOT HAVING A SURVEY DONE PRIOR TO ITS PURCHASE OF THESE LOTS.
AND I, I WOULD CONTEND THAT THE LACK OF A SURVEY DOES NOT MAKE IT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP IN THAT REGARD.
THAT HARDSHIP, AGAIN, IT HAD ALREADY EXISTED FOR DECADES BEFORE MY CLIENT ENTERED THE PICTURE, INCLUDING UNDER THE PRIOR OWNER AND, AND SEVERAL PRIOR OWNERS BEFORE THAT.
UM, THE PROBLEM REALLY HAS EXISTED SENTENCED TO THE SECOND HOUSE, THE ONE THAT STRADDLES THE PROPERTY LINE NUMBERED AS 6 31 KIBBLER STREET WAS BUILT, UH, STRADDLING THAT PROPERTY LINE.
UM, SO, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT, I DON'T THINK IT CAN REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED TO BE A SELF, SELF-INFLICTED HARDSHIP UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
ON THE CONTRARY, MY, MY CLIENT IS PURSUING THIS ATTEMPT IN GOOD FAITH TO TAKE A SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY PROBLEMATIC AND ALREADY NON-CONFORMING THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY CLIENT AND, AND MAKE IT BETTER.
UM, THE LOTS, AS AS TOWN STAFF HAS ALREADY NOTED, THE LOTS ARE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING.
UM, AND, UM, ONE OF THEM LOT THREE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE SO AFTER THE, UH, IF, IF THE BOARD, UH, APPROVES MY CLIENT'S REQUEST, BUT LOT FOUR WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF ESSENTIALLY NOT HAVING THE PROPERTY LINE RUN RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE.
SO MY, MY CLIENT IS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THESE LOTS AS NONCONFORMING AS POSSIBLE BY GIVING THE TWO DWELLINGS THEIR OWN LOTS, WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTED WOULD SATISFY A, UH, A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAND USE, UNLIKE WITH, UH, A LOT OF OTHER VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT MAY COME BEFORE YOU WE'RE NOT REQUESTING A NEW NON-CONFORMING USE ONLY A CHANGE TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE TO MAKE THEM LESS NON-CONFORMING.
UM, THE, THE LETTER THAT I HAD, UH, SENT AND MY CLIENT HAD PROVIDED AT THE LAST MEETING HIGHLIGHTED THREE VERY SIMILAR VARIANTS AS GRANTED BY THE BZA A JUST IN THE PAST THREE YEARS SINCE 2019.
UM, THOSE, THOSE THREE CASES WERE AS FOLLOWS IN, UH, CASE NUMBER 1672 DASH 2019.
ORIGINALLY, THERE WERE THREE HOUSES ON TWO LOTS, AND THE LOT LINE FOR THOSE TWO LOTS ORIGINALLY WENT RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF EACH HOUSE.
AND THE BOARD, UH, AT THAT TIME APPROVED A RE SUBDIVISION SO THAT EACH HOUSE HAD ITS OWN LOT AND ALL THE LOT LINES ENDED UP FACING THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN, UH, CASE NUMBER 2235 DASH 2020.
THERE ORIGINALLY WERE TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT, AND AGAIN, THE BOARD APPROVED A RE SUBDIVISION SO THAT EACH HOUSE HAD ITS OWN LOT.
AND IN, UH, CASE NUMBER 24 0 3 3 DASH 2020, THE BOARD APPROVED A REQUEST, UH, FOR EACH, UH, SET OF, UH, OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO HAVE ITS OWN LOT WHEN THEY ALL HAD BEEN ON ONE LOT PREVIOUSLY.
SO ALL THREE OF THOSE RECENT EXAMPLES RESULTED IN VARIANCES, UM, ESPECIALLY THE SIDE SETBACK DISTANCES FROM THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
UM, WHAT WAS NOT ATTACHED WITH MY LETTER PREVIOUSLY WITH I DO HAVE COPIES OF IN CASE YOU WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THEM, ARE THE PLATS FOR THOSE OTHER, UH, THOSE OTHER APPROVED VARIANCES, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY INTEREST IN REVIEWING THOSE.
UM, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, WE CONTEND THAT THE TOWN CODE GIVES THIS BOARD, UH, THE POWER TO GRANT VARIANCES, QUOTE, WHEN OWING TO SPECIALIST CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, PROVIDED THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER SHALL BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.
AND THAT'S IN SECTION 1 75 DASH 1 39 D OF THE TOWN CODE, BOTH THE TOWN CODE AND, AND AS ECHOED IN, IN STATE LAW, UH, SPECIFICALLY 15.2 DASH 2 3 0 9 0.2 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA OUTLINE A SERIES OF FIVE FACTORS, UH, WHICH IF ALL ARE SHOWN THE VARIANCE IS SHALL BE, THE STATE LAW ACTUALLY USES THE WORD SHALL BE GRANTED.
SO, NUMBER ONE, THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH AND THE HARDSHIP MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, FOR THE REASONS ARTICULATED PREVIOUSLY, WE, WE CONTEND THAT IS THE CASE HERE.
NUMBER TWO, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE OF SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY AND, UH, NEARBY PROPERTIES IN THE PROXIMITY OF THAT AREA, WHICH AGAIN, WE CONTEND IS ALSO THE CASE HERE.
IF THE BOARD APPROVES THIS CHANGE, THERE WILL BE NO, NO CHANGE IN THE USE OF THESE LOTS, ONLY OF THE LOCATION OF THE BOUNDARY.
WE'RE NOT SEEKING REZONING OF ANY KIND.
THESE PROPERTIES WILL REMAIN RESIDENTIAL.
UH, NUMBER THREE IN, IN THAT LIST OF CONDITIONS IS THAT THE CONDITION IS NOT OF A GENERAL NATURE, UM, AND THAT THAT IS THE CASE HERE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS SPECIFIC TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND NOT TO THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
AS THE STAFF REPORT NOTES, THERE ARE TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS PRESENT HERE THAT ARE NOT SHARED BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THE FOURTH IN THE LIST OF FACTORS IS THAT THE GRANTING OF OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A USE THAT IS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED, WHICH AGAIN, IS TRUE.
THE USE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE USE OF THESE PROPERTIES WILL NOT CHANGE, WILL REMAIN RESIDENTIAL AND FI.
UH, NUMBER FIVE, FINALLY, THAT THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS OR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS ALSO TRUE HERE.
[00:20:01]
WE, WE BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS, UH, IN THE TOWN CODE AND THE CODE OF VIRGINIA ARE MET.UM, THE CURRENT SITUATION, UM, AS, AS, UM, MY CLIENT ARTICULATED THE LAST TIME, UH, REPRESENTS AN UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR MY CLIENT.
UH, THE PROPOSED NEW LINE AS TOWN STAFF NOTED WOULD BE EQUIDISTANT BETWEEN THE TWO DWELLINGS, WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTED AS A POSITIVE FACTOR IN FAVOR OF, OF, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL.
SIMPLY PUT, E UH, MY CLIENT CONTENDS THAT EACH LOT NEEDS EACH, EXCUSE ME, EACH HOUSE NEEDS ITS OWN LOT AND ADDRESS, WHICH WILL LEAD TO AN INCREASED, INCREASED VALUE FOR THEM AND FRANKLY, INCREASED TAX REVENUE FOR THE TOWN.
UM, AND IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR MY CLIENT TO RENT THE HOUSES UNDER THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE IN DOING SO, THEY CAN'T JUST SIMPLY RENT ONE LOT TO EACH RENTER.
UM, THERE, THERE'S GOTTA BE IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT BECAUSE THERE THE, THE PROPERTY LINES ARE NOT, ARE NOT CLEAR AND DON'T MATCH UP WITH THE LOCATIONS OF THESE HOUSES.
UM, SO AS TOWN STAFF HAS ALREADY NOTED AND AS, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AGENDA MATERIALS THAT YOU HAVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UPON MY CLIENT MAKING A CHANGE TO THE PLAT, WHICH WAS DONE PROMPTLY TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
UH, NOBODY HAS, UH, COME FORWARD TO COME FORWARD TO OPPOSE THIS VARIANCE AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT IT BE APPROVED.
AND, UH, MY CLIENT, UH, IS ALSO HERE TO, UM, SPEAK AND TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU WOULD HAVE.
AS DEFINING THE TOWN CODE OF FRONT ROYAL, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS DEFINED AT A AS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT OTHER THAN A MOBILE HOME, A MANUFACTURED HOME DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY ONE FAMILY AND NOT LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS AN NUMBER DWELLING UNIT.
PRIOR TO PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, THE LLC WAS AWARE 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 LOT FOUR ACTUALLY RAN THROUGH THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THAT FACES KIBBLER STREET.
IN 2011, THERE WAS A SURVEY DONE ON THE PROPERTY FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ON THE LOTS, BUT THE STRUCTURES WERE NOT PLACED ON THE SURVEY.
IT WAS JUST A SURVEY OF THE LAND.
THERE WAS NO OTHER RECORDED SURVEY FOR THESE PROPERTIES AVAILABLE BESIDES THE FLAT IN 2011.
THERE WAS NO IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PRIOR TO THE LLC SURVEY.
THE BZA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS AUTHORIZED UPON APPEAL IN SPECIFIC CASES SUCH VARIANCE IN THE TERMS OF THE CHAPTER AS WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
BUT THE STATE CODE DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT THE WORD HARDSHIP MEANS IN THE AU IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT IS UP TO THE BOARD TO EXAMINE EACH APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST.
THE LLC IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY LIE BETWEEN LAUNCH THREE AND FOUR.
THE LOT LINE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ON KILLER STREET.
THE USE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES ARE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THESE DWELLS ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND CONTAIN NO SHARED LIVING SPACE.
THIS HARDSHIP OF RESTRICTING THE USE OF SEDGE DWELLING IS NOT SHARED GENERALLY OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THESE TWO PROPERTIES, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE ON KIBBLER STREET, UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE TWO PROPERTIES AS IT WAS INTENDED.
THESE TWO HOUSES SHOULD BE LEGALLY SEPARATED, OTHER OWN SEPARATE LOTS WHERE THEIR OWN SEPARATE LEGAL ADDRESS.
A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE NEEDS ITS OWN LEGAL ADDRESS.
CURRENTLY THERE IS ONE ADDRESS FROM THESE PROPERTIES AND THAT ADDRESS IS 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
THIS ADDRESS, ADDRESS INCORPORATES BOTH DWELLINGS.
THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL FINANCE HAS UTILITY BILLS ADDRESSED THIS WAY AND THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION FROM THE TAX OFFICE.
THE TAX OFFICE HAS ONE TAX LOT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT INCLUDES BOTH PROPERTIES.
THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE HAS BOTH PROPERTIES UNDER THE SAME ADDRESS.
THE POST OFFICE HAS ONE ADDRESS FOR THESE PROPERTIES.
THE GIS SYSTEM DOES HAVE THE HOUSE ON LOT THREE AND LOT FOUR AS 6 31 K STREET WHEN YOU SEARCH IT.
BUT WHEN YOU CLICK ON THAT ACTUAL HOUSE, THE LEGAL ADDRESS POPS UP 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET BECAUSE AT ONE POINT SOMEONE HAD CALLED 9 1 1 AND THEY NEED A PHYSICAL ADDRESS, WHICH IS WHY THIS IS PROBABLY UPDATED.
BUT BECAUSE THE GIS LIST, THIS HOUSE PHYSICALLY IS 6 31 K STREET DOES NOT IN ANY WAY UPDATE OR CHANGE WHAT THE ADDRESS OF THIS PROPERTY LEGALLY IS, WHICH IS 2 25 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
THERE IS PRECEDENT THAT THIS BOARD CONSIDER AND EXAMINE APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCES UNDER THE CODE.
THE BOARD IS TASKED WITH EXAMINING EACH APPLICANT AND ASSESSING WHETHER A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CHAPTER WILL PRODUCE UNDUE HARDSHIP AND ALSO REGARDING THE WATER AND THE SEWER.
IF I COULD DIRECT YOU TO THE TOWN CODE, UM, 1 34, LET'S SEE, DASH 38, SECTION D.
SEPARATE BUILDING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH SEPARATE WATER METERS AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE CONNECTION OF MORE THAN ONE BUILDING TO THE SAME METER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT BY SPECIAL PERMISSION SHALL INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, DECORATIVE FOUNTAINS, FISH POOLS, SWIMMING POOLS, AND OTHER MULTIPLE LIVING QUARTERS.
AND GRANTING SUCH PERMISSION, THE TOWN MANAGER SHALL ENSURE THAT NUMBER FOUR, THE NEW CONNECTION IS
[00:25:01]
TERMINATED TO THE PROPERTY OR BUILDING, SUPPORTING THE EXTRA CONNECTION BE CONVEYED OR LEASED.NOW THAT BEING SAID, YES, SPECIAL PERMISSION CAN BE GRANTED FOR AN ADDITIONAL WATER SEWER LINE TO GO TO THE HOUSE ON KIBBLER STREET, SEPARATING IT FROM THE HOUSE IN E SEVEN.
HOWEVER, THE WATER SEWER METER WOULD HAVE TO GO ON THE LOT LINE, THEREFORE RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE LOT OF PARTIAL FOUR, WHICH IS BILLABLE.
THIS UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS UTILIZATION OF NOT ONLY THE TWO PROPERTIES SHARING A LOT LINE, BUT ALSO THE VACANT LOTS LOCATED ON KEILLER STREET.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR? SURE.
IN THE BEGINNING YOU SAID THAT BEFORE YOU HAD THE SURVEY YOU KNEW THE LOT, YOU KNEW THE HOUSE WAS ON, BOTH BUILDINGS WERE ON THE SAME LOT, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE LINE RAN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF ONE OF THEM.
WHEN YOU KNEW THAT BOTH HOUSES WERE ON THE SAME LOT, WHAT WAS YOUR INITIAL INTENTION OF USING THAT BUILDING WHEN YOU ASSUMED IT WAS ALL ON ONE LOT? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? YOU SAID THAT YOU THOUGHT THE FIRST TWO BUILDINGS, THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE, YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE ON ONE LOT MM-HMM.
UM, I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IF YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE BOTH ON THE SAME LOT INITIALLY AND YOU INTENDED IMMEDIATELY TO GET THE LOT LINE ADJUSTED TO DIVIDE THE TWO PROPERTIES, THEN YOU ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE GONNA NEED A VARIANCE RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO? NO, I MEAN, WHEN, WHEN WE FOUND OUT THE LINE WENT THROUGH THE PROPERTY ON KIPLER STREET, THAT'S WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO MOVE THE LINE, THE LINE THROUGH THE TWO PROPERTIES.
SO KNOWING THAT THEY WERE ON ONE PROPERTY, YOU WERE OKAY WITH BUYING IT THAT WAY? YES.
AND YOU HAD A USE FOR IT, A REASONABLE USE FOR IT KNOWING THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE ON ONE LOT.
I MEAN, THE LOT LINE GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE AS IT IS UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE HOUSE ON CABER STREET AND THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICATION IS ABOUT.
BUT THAT'S HOW YOU SAID YOU, YOU KNEW IT WAS WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT.
YEAH, BUT THE APPLICATION IS TO MOVE THE LOT LINE THROUGH THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT GOES THROUGH THE HOUSE LINE, KIPLER STREET.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION TO DIVIDE.
I MAY, UM, A SERIES OF QUESTIONS MM-HMM.
AND, AND YOU PURCHASED A LOT IN JUNE, DID YOU KNOW THAT ONE HOUSE AND A HALF WAS ON ONE LOT? NO.
WHEN DID THAT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? WHEN THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED, WHICH WAS IN SEPTEMBER, I THINK.
UM, DO YOU, YOU DIDN'T GET A SURVEY WHEN YOU PURCHASED A HOME THOUGH.
IS THERE A REASON WHY? THERE'S NO PARTICULAR REASON.
SO I'M GONNA BACK UP HERE JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT PAGE HERE.
WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JUNE MM-HMM.
YOU REALIZE THAT AFTER THE SURVEY WAS DONE IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, AND THAT IS WHY YOUR STATING THAT THERE IS A HARDSHIP CORRECT.
NOT ALLOWING YOU TO DO WHAT YOUR LLC WISHES TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIRMAN, I, I MOVE AS I DID LET, I, I MOVE THAT THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED BASED UPON HARDSHIP.
WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER IT WAS, WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER IT WAS SELF-INDUCED OR NOT.
UM, I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THERE'S AN OPTION FOR A GRAY AREA AND I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE VARIANCE.
IS THERE A SECOND? THERE IS NOT A SECOND.
THERE ARE A NEW MOTION HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
SOMEBODY ELSE CAN MAKE A MOTION.
CAN I MAKE A MOTION? YES, YOU CAN GO ON MY CHAIR.
IF WE CAN'T SAY YES, THEN IT'S AUTOMATICALLY NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE CODE.
THAT'S WHAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE LAST
[00:30:01]
TIME.YEAH, BUT THE MOTION TO SAY YES IS NOT APPROVED.
THEREFORE, THERE'S THERE'S NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR A YES.
IF THERE'S, YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION TO SAY YES AT THIS POINT.
SO WE CANNOT, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO SAY YES.
SO THEREFORE THE APPLICATION IS DENIED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR THAT.
AND SO OTHER IN FAVOR BUSINESS BEFORE.
SO THEN, UM, I GUESS IS THERE ANY OTHER FORM OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED? WOULD THIS BY LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING IN FEBRUARY TO JUST GO OVER MEETING PROCEDURES AND PROTECT BYLAWS? YES.
YEAH, LOOK, THAT WAS LIKE A SECOND AND A THIRD I THINK.
THAT MIGHT BE ONE WHERE IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO STRESS THAT EVERYONE COMES.
YEAH, I MEAN, I KNOW ANDY, SO EVERY MEETING IT'S IMPORTANT.
JUST SAYING THAT WOULD BE, DID YOU ALL GET THE EMAIL I SENT OUT WITH THE MEETING DATES TODAY? YES, MA'AM.
AND AT THIS POINT THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS FOR JANUARY.
SO FEBRUARY WOULD, UM, STAFF WILL REACH OUT, I GUESS TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY, THE CHAIRMAN WHO CAN BE AVAILABLE.
AND THEN WE'LL PREPARE JUST TO, JUST BASICALLY AN OUTLINE.
AND I WILL GET SOMEBODY HERE THAT CAN KIND OF TAKE YOU THROUGH THE STEPS OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
I THINK IT'S JUST GOOD FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE A REFRESHER.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MADAM CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN.
UM, IS THERE A VOICE VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOS THE OPPOSED, LET ME CUT OFF.