[00:00:02]
SO I WOULD GO AHEAD AND I'D LIKE
[Board of Zoning Appeals on December 19, 2023.]
TO CALL THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING INTO ORDER ON DECEMBER 20TH, DECEMBER 19TH, UH, 2023 AT 7:00 PM AND, UH, MS. POTTER, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL FOR US, PLEASE? MM-HMM?AND FIRST ON ORDER IS ELECTION OF A VICE CHAIRMAN.
SO DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR A NOMINEE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN? I'LL NOMINATE MYSELF.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO AN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 21ST, 2023.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES? I MOTION UNTIL PER THE MEETING MINUTES.
IS THERE A SECOND? I WASN'T HERE.
UM, MS. POWER ROLL CALL PLEASE.
SO WE ARE HERE FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION, 2 3 0 0 7 5 5 SUBMITTED BY, UH, GUALBERTO D CAMACHO PEREZ FOR A VARIANCE FOR TOWN CODE CHAPTER 1 7 5 DASH THREE ZERO C PERTAINING TO THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY OF TWO 19 EAST SEVENTH STREET, IDENTIFIED BY TAX MAP TWO ZERO A FOUR DASH FOUR DASH TWO.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE C UH, ONE COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODWAY.
THE VARIANCE WOULD EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THE APPLICANT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 9.9 FEET.
THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 10.7 FEET, AND THE APPLICANT HAS A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 9.9 FEET.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IS TO ALLOW A NEW FOUNDATION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR EACH APPLICATION IS AS FOLLOWS.
STAFF WILL GIVE A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED OR ENCOURAGED TO SPEAK, BUT NOT REQUIRED.
AFTER THE APPLICANT GIVES THEIR PRESENTATION, WE WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT SECTION.
ONCE ALL THOSE THAT WISH TO DO SO HAVE DONE SO AND HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I ASK THAT YOU DIRECT ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOARD, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS THE APPLICANT STAFF OR OTHER SPEAKERS FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP AND WISH TO SPEAK.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS.
AND WHEN YOU STEP UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND ENSURE ALL COMMENTS ARE RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THE AGENDA.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
JOHN, UH, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKET, UH, INFORMATION REGARDING THIS APPLICATION, UH, LOCATED AT, UH, TWO 19 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE C ONE COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
UH, THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 9.9, WHERE REQUIRED AS 10.7.
THERE'S SEVERAL FACTORS, UH, REGARDING THIS APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE.
UH, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN, I WANNA BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
SO BASED ON PROVISIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN, 1 75, 74 D, NO LAND SHALL BE, SHALL HEREAFTER BE DEVELOPED, AND NO STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED, RELOCATED, CONSTRUCTED, RECONSTRUCTED, ENLARGED, OR
[00:05:01]
STRUCTURALLY ALTERED EXCEPT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.SO THAT SETS THE PRECEDENCE FOR WORK THAT'S DOING IN THE FLOODPLAIN BY THE DEFINITIONS OF 1 75 75 SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
THAT'S FOR ANY RECONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, ADDITIONAL OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF A STRUCTURE.
THE COST SWITCH E EQUALS OR EXCEEDS 50% OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE BEFORE THE START OF CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS A STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPROVED BY 50% OF THE VALUE THAT MAKES IT IN, UH, SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THAT STRUCTURE HAS TO BE IN FULL COMPLIANT WITH THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE.
AND ALSO WITH THE REMAINDER OF THAT, IT'S A RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
SO NEW CONSTRUCTION OR SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OF ANY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SHALL HAVE THE LOWEST FLOOR, INCLUDING THE BASEMENT ELEVATED, NO LOWER THAN ONE FOOT ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
ALSO, PART OF THE EXPANSION, UH, PROCESS, UH, WHICH I DON'T HAVE LISTED THERE, BUT UNDER 1 75, 1 30, A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MAY BE ENLARGED IF THE EXPANSION DOES NOT CREATE A NEW NON-CONFORMITY AND DOES NOT INCREASE THE DEGREE OR INTENSITY OF THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE A STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
THERE'S A LOCATION AT TWO 19 EAST SEVENTH STREET.
THE ENTIRE, UH, SECTION OF TOWN THERE, UH, BASICALLY FROM UH, CROSBY ROAD OR TO RAILROAD TRACKS OVER TO PAST WARREN AVENUE.
ALL THOSE STRUCTURES ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
SO THIS, UH, IS NOT UNIQUE IN THAT SENSE.
THERE IS THE STRUCTURE PRIOR TO THE ALTERATION RECONSTRUCTION.
IN THE ADDITION OF THE SECOND STORY OF THE HOME, UH, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR THIS TO US.
UH, THEY SUBMITTED THE BUILDING PLANS, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
THEY SUBMITTED THE PREVIOUS ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, WHICH IS REQUIRED SHOWING THE STRUCTURE.
THE FIRST FLOOR IS BELOW BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
SO SINCE IT IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THEY'RE DOING SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS, THAT STRUCTURE HAS TO BE RAISED ONE FOOT ABOVE BASE FLOOD.
THAT'S THE REGULATION ON THAT TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
IN THE FLOODPLAIN, UH, THAT IS THE, UH, EXISTING HOUSE AS IT IS NOW.
THE FRONT VIEW, UH, THE SIDE VIEW WITH FLOOD VENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE FOUNDATION HERE.
THOSE REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, THE APPLICANT DID INSTALL THE FLOOD VENTS AND BASED ON THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED AFTER THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETE, IT IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE AND OUR CODE FOR FLOODPLAIN.
UH, THERE IS THE OTHER VIEW OF THE HOME AND TWO MORE ADDITIONAL FLOOD VENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED, UH, ON THE FOUNDATION.
SO IT IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE BASED ON THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED.
UH, THAT IS THE HOUSE PLANS THAT THEY SUBMITTED.
AND THEY NOTED ON THE PLANS THAT YOU SEE THAT THAT BASE FLOOD OF THE EXISTING HOME WAS HERE.
SO THE REQUIREMENT WAS TO RAISE THE FLOOR UP HIGHER, ONE FOOT ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, WHICH THEY DID BASED ON THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED.
THE REASON, UH, AND WE, UH, THE PLANNING AND ZONING WHEN THE APPLICATION CAME IN, AND WE APPROVED THAT, THAT WAS FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OF THAT, WE, UH, APPROVE FOR IF THE USE IS APPROPRIATE AND IT MEETS THE SETBACKS AND WHICH THE APPLICATION DID AT THE TIME.
UH, THE TOWN HAS AN MOU WITH THE COUNTY ONCE THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED FOR ZONING APPROVAL FOR THE SETBACKS.
UH, AND IF IT IS, UH, APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE IN THAT DISTRICT, UH, THEY APPLY FOR THE COUNTY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
WARREN COUNTY DOES THE PLAN REVIEW ON THE STRUCTURE.
THEY ISSUE THE BUILDING PERMITS AND THEY DO THE INSPECTIONS.
[00:10:01]
INSPECTIONS ON THESE STRUCTURES ONCE IT MEETS ZONING APPROVAL.UH, THAT'S THE OTHER, UH, PART OF THE DRAWING THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
UH, PART OF THE DRAWINGS FOR THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR THAT THE, UH, COUNTY PLAN REVIEW ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
THE BUILDING PERMITS, UH, THAT'S THE OTHER PART, PART OF THE APPLICATION WHICH COMES, UH, BEFORE YOU WAS, WHEN THE FIRST PART OF THE EXISTING BUILDING OR THE OLD BUILDING WAS THE HOUSE WAS LOCATED AT 10.7 FEET OFF OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.
SINCE THIS IS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, THE CODE REQUIRES A CORNER LOT TO BE 15 FEET, BUT THIS SIDE TO BE ZERO.
SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY ON A COMMERCIAL LOT, FOR EXAMPLE, A COMMERCIAL BUILDING COULD BE BASICALLY BUILT ON THE PROPERTY LINE HERE, BUT IS REQUIRED TO BE 15 FOOT OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE HERE AT THE RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND A NON-CONFORMING USE.
THE STRUCTURE WAS THERE, ORIGINALLY IT WAS REZONED COMMERCIAL.
IT DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS FOR C ONE.
IT WAS APPROVED ONCE, BUT NOW DOES NOT MEET THAT.
SO NOW THAT 10.7 IS THE SETBACK LINE 'CAUSE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
UH, THEY DID THE WORK AND WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THE FINAL, UH, ELEVATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE SURVEYOR SHOWING THE FLOOD VENTS THAT WAS FLOODPLAIN COMPLIANT, UH, WHICH WAS APPROVED, EVERYTHING WAS IN ORDER.
HOWEVER, NOW THE FOUNDATION IS 9.9 FEET OFF OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON KIPLER STREET.
UH, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING ON THE INITIAL APPLICATION WHEN IT CAME IN, IF WE GO BACK TO THE BUILDING PLANS, UH, THEY DID SHOW THE EXISTING FOUNDATION AND ANTICIPATING COMING OFF, OFF AN EXISTING FOUNDATION, RAISING THAT ABOVE BFE FOR THE FIRST FLOOR.
BUT DURING THE PROCESS, UH, WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OR PORTION OF RECONSTRUCTION, THE FOUNDATION, UH, A NEW FOUNDATION WAS PUT IN ITS PLACE.
AND IT WAS NOT PUT BACK IN ITS SAME EXACT PLACE AS IT WAS, UH, PREVIOUSLY.
AND THAT IS THE REASON YOU'RE HEARING THIS CASE.
UH, TOWN STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY CANNOT APPROVE A VARIANCE OF THIS.
THAT IS FOR, THAT IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
AND IT, IT MAY BE ENLARGED, BUT THE EXPANSION CANNOT CREATE A NEW NON-CONFORMANCE.
SO THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO GO FROM THE 10.7 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE.
I CAN GO THROUGH THAT TO THE 9.9 THAT IS EXISTING.
UH, THE COUNTY DID ISSUE THEIR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT.
UH, AT THE TIME THE COUNTY ISSUED THE BUILDING PERMIT IN APRIL THE SIXTH OF THIS YEAR FOR RENOVATIONS AND REMODELING.
UH, SO THEY DID GET THE PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY AND APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT OR THE ZONING PERMIT.
UM, I CAN ENTERTAIN SOME QUESTIONS IF YOU'D LIKE AT THIS POINT, OR YOU CAN WAIT AFTER THE, THE APPLICANT, UH, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.
WELL, UH, THE FIRST QUESTION I'VE GOT IS, ARE WE BASICALLY LOOKING AT A 1.2 FOOT DIFFERENCE IN SETBACK? UH, IT WENT FROM 9.9 UHHUH, UH, IT WAS AT 10.7.
SO NOW IT IS 9.9 FEET, EIGHT INCHES, UH, 10 INCHES.
SO 10 INCHES 8 8 8 TENTHS OF A FOOT, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 10 INCHES BASICALLY.
IS 10 INCHES CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS IF THIS LOT, IF THIS HOUSE WAS ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A CORNER LOT WHERE WE'D BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION? YES.
IF IT, IF IT WAS IN, IF IT WAS IN THE C ONE DISTRICT AND NOT A CORNER LOT, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE 10 FEET ON ONE SIDE.
[00:15:01]
BE ON THE OTHER.SO IF IT WAS THIS LOT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE COMMERCIAL C ONE DISTRICT, ESSENTIALLY THE BUILDING COULD BE BUILT IF YOU WANT, SAY, APPROXIMATELY ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THERE'S A MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT ON ONE SIDE ONLY.
SO THEY HAVE 13 THREE ON THIS SIDE.
UH, ORIGINALLY, UH, LET'S GO THROUGH, SO NOW THEY HAVE 11, ONE ON THIS SIDE AND 9.9 ON THIS SIDE.
DOES THAT, THAT DOES, I GOT YOU.
SO IF THEY MOVE THE, THE FOUNDATION 10 INCHES, THEN THEY BE IN COMPLIANCE.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.
I HAVE A QUESTION THAT IT'S, IT'S IN THE COMP PLAN.
THIS IS GONNA BE, OR THEY'RE PLANNING TO UN REZONING IT TO MIXED USE.
DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHAT'S THE SETBACK FOR THAT? UH, THAT IS YET TO BE DETERMINED.
SO MIXED USE IS, UM, GREAT QUESTION AS IT'S STATED, MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL.
SO THE SETBACKS FOR MIXED USE IS YET TO BE DETERMINED, WHICH WOULD STILL NOT APPLY TO IT BECAUSE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING.
SO IT WOULD BE STICKING TO ITS NON-CONFORMING ORIGINAL SETUP.
UM, WELL, THE MIXED USE PLAN SET.
WELL, IT'S NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE SET.
SO, SO DO WE HAVE ANY, ESSENTIALLY WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF WE CHANGE THE SETBACKS IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS? THOSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE EXISTING? IF THEY DON'T MEET THE NEW ONE, THOSE WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING.
THAT'S HOW THE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND THE NON-CONFORMING USE COMES IN.
DOES THAT MM-HMM,
UH, SO THE MIXED USE THOUGH, DO WE, I MEAN, DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE ANY MIXED USE ZONING? I GUESS I SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT, UH, WE DON'T USE THE TERM MIXED USE ZONING.
SO WE HAVE THE C ONE, C TWO, INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL R ONE, R TWO P AND D AND THOSE.
SO WE ARE, THE COMP PLAN IS CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS AND AH, OKAY.
THE USES IN LARGE MAJORITY PART OF THE TOWN.
SO THIS IS, IS REVAMPING THE WHOLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING, I WOULDN'T SAY REVAMPING ALL OF IT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT TO MAKE APPROPRIATE WHERE WE HAVE USES SCATTERED THROUGH TOWN THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING NOW.
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED TO SHIFT SOME OF THE ZONING IN OTHER AREAS FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, MIXED USE.
WE DON'T HAVE MIXED USE NOW IT'S EITHER COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS C ONE OR C TWO OR RESIDENTIAL OR SOMETHING IN THAT MAGNITUDE.
AND YOU SAID STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE? WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
THAT'S THE DZA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE ON THIS OR, UH, THE SECOND PART WOULD BE IF THE APPLICANT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THAT THEY FEEL THEY WERE UN UNFAIRLY DETERMINED ON A ZONING MATTER.
THEY COULD COME FOR YOU FOR DETERMINATION.
AND SO DID THE STAFF, BASED ON WHAT I READ, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE STAFF HAD ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH GRANTING THE VARIANCE THOUGH.
IS THAT ACCURATE? NO, THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEING IT.
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INFORM, IT DID RIGHT TO THE LAWS.
BUT OUR QUESTION WAS DID THE STAFF HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT? OTHERWISE WE, WE DON'T WEIGH IN THAT YOU HAVE THE QUESTIONS AND PART OF YOUR PACKET.
YEAH, I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT THAT'S BASED ON WHAT I READ THOUGH.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS INTERPRETING CORRECTLY.
THE STAFF DID NOT FLAG ANY MAJOR ISSUES WITH THIS.
IS THAT RIGHT? INTERPRET THAT CORRECTLY OR CAN YOU NOT? WE ONLY, WE WE PRESENT THE INFORMATION TO YOU.
WE CANNOT, WE DO NOT HAVE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU, YOU COME BEFORE YOU.
IF THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS THAT WE OUTLINED, UH, IN THE PACKET, UM, LET ME ASK YOU IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
IF THERE WAS SOME MAJOR ISSUE THAT IT WAS GONNA CAUSE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY LINE OR SOME, THERE WAS SOME MAJOR ISSUE, WOULD STAFF FLAG THAT FOR US? THOSE IN THE FLOOD ZONE? YES.
THEY HAD TO MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN THE FLOOD ZONE.
UH, WITH THAT PART OF THAT, IF IT IS, IF THE, THE BUILDING IS ANCHORED, OBVIOUSLY IT HAS A FOUNDATION IN IT, IT DID NOT INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT AREA FOR FLOOD ISSUES.
UH, SO IT MET THE COMPLIANCE FOR ALL THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE PART.
I READ, I READ THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SENT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT, INTERPRETED THAT CORRECTLY.
SO YOU DO HAVE PART OF YOUR NOTES AND WITH THE
[00:20:01]
APPLICATION, UH, THERE'S A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT WE PUT IN THE PACKET, UH, THAT YOU SHOULD, UM, ON THE STAFF COMMENTS SECTION.AND THAT'S WHERE YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION IF, UH, THE APPLICANT, IF YOU BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS MET THOSE CONDITIONS THAT RAN THE VARIANCE.
HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER VARIANCES THAT ARE SIMILAR IN THAT SAME AREA THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD? WERE THERE LIKE A FOOT CLOSER TO THE ROAD? UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY, UH, IN MY TIME HERE AS DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, WE'VE HAD A CASE, UH, SUCH AS THIS.
WE'VE HAD OTHER CASES, UH, THAT THEY SET ON, BUT NOT HERE IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
THOSE WERE VARIANCE, UH, VARIANCES CAME UP.
ONE IS BASED ON THEIR OWN MERIT, SO YEAH.
SO WE'VE HAD OTHER APPLICATIONS, BUT YOU GET TO TREAT EACH ONE ON ITS OWN MERIT.
THAT'S WHY THEY COME BEFORE YOU TO, UH, MAKE A DECISION.
OR CAN YOU RESTATE THE, THE DUE DILIGENCE PART OF PURCHASING A PROPERTY IN THE FLOODPLAIN? THE UNDERSTANDING OF YOU, IF YOU DO ANY RECONSTRUCTION, IT HAS, IT HAS TO LOOK THE EXACT, IT HAS TO MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? UH, NO.
SO THIS ISSUE HERE WAS, IT WAS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
SO YOU NEED TO KNOW AHEAD OF TIME THAT YOU'RE PURCHASING A PROPERTY IN A FLOODPLAIN.
SO IF YOU PLAN TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO IT, IT HAS TO BE THE EXACT SAME WAY, YOU KNOW, STAND IN THE SAME FORM OF IT.
THAT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
SO YOU CAN BUILD IN THE FLOODPLAIN, NON-COMMERCIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
YOU JUST HAVE TO MEET THE CONDITIONS BASED ON THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE, WHICH THEY DID IT ORIGINALLY.
THEY WERE NOT NONCONFORMING BOTH ON THE FLOODPLAIN.
EVENTUALLY THEY WERE JUST NON-CONFORMING ON THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND THEY WERE CONFORMING WITHIN THE SETBACKS WHEN THEY REDID IT.
THEY'RE NOW CONFORM, THEY'RE NOW CONFORMING TO THE FLOODPLAIN PIECE.
BUT THE, THE, IT WAS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
SO HE RAISED THE BUILDING AH, OKAY.
HIGHER AND MET THE CONDITIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE.
SO THE BUILDING WAS RAISED HIGHER BASED ON WHAT WE REQUIRE.
SO IT MET ALL THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
SO ANYBODY THAT BUILDS, WHETHER IT'S NON-RESIDENTIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE AND THE CONDITIONS PLACED ON THAT.
AND THE SETBACKS ARE RELATED TO THE ZONE OR THE C ONE, THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
NOT AS MUCH TO THE FLOODPLAIN.
EACH ZONING HAS ITS OWN SETBACKS.
SO THEY FIX THE, THE FLOODING, THE FLOODPLAIN NONCONFORMITY NOW COMPLIANT NON BOTH COMPLIANT WITH THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND IF THEY WOULD'VE RAISED IT UP A FEW MORE INCHES, YOU ALL WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE IT, RAISE IT BACK.
THE APPLICATION IS NOT FOR THE FLOODPLAIN.
IT WOULD'VE KEPT SAME FOUNDATION RAISING.
THE REASON WE'RE SEEING IT IS BECAUSE IT SETS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE BY HOW MANY INCHES? 10 INCHES.
THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
THEY MET ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLOODPLAIN.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE FLOODPLAIN.
UH, IT'S, IT'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT FACTORS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE HERE FOR IS ONLY ON THE, THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING I UNDERSTAND.
IS NOT IN THE SAME PLACE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY.
SO PRIOR TO THEIR WORK, THEY WERE THE FULL 10.9 FEET BACK AWAY.
WELL, BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE WAS NON-CONFORMING, MEANING IT DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT C ONE ZONING RESTRICTIONS FOR SETBACK IT NEEDED TO BE 15.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED NON-CONFORMING.
IT DOES NOT MEET TODAY'S REQUIREMENTS.
[00:25:01]
ON TWO FRONTS, THEY FIXED ONE ISSUE.SO IT'S, AND DIDN'T FIX THE OTHER, IT WAS KIND OF GRANDFATHERING IN WITH, WELL, WE DON'T USE THE WORD GRANDFATHERING, IT'S NONCONFORMING.
IT WAS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AT ONE TIME.
BUT WE CHANGED THE ZONING DISTRICT AT ONE POINT AND THE CONDITIONS THEREOF, WHICH REQUIRES A CORNER LOT TO BE 15 FEET.
SO THAT MAKES THE STRUCTURE NON-CONFORMING.
SO IF WE JUST LEAVE IT, IT IS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED, YOU DO NOT BRING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES INTO CONFORMANCE.
YOU HAVE, IT IS JUST NON-CONFORMING.
AS THE STRUCTURE SITS, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT ESTABLISHED THE SETBACK.
THAT ESTABLISHED WHAT THE SETBACK WAS.
SO YOU DO NOT BRING THESE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES INTO CONFORMANCE BASED ON THE SETBACK, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ESTABLISHED WHAT THE SETBACK WAS.
SO YOU CANNOT ENLARGE THAT NON-CONFORMANCE.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE CANNOT GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THIS.
IF THEY'D HAVE KEPT THE FOUNDATION THE EXACT SAME SIZE, Y'ALL WOULDN'T BE HER.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.
THEY REPORT A NEW FOUNDATION AND MADE IT LARGER.
IT'S FOR ONE PROBLEM, WHICH WE HAD NOT ALREADY APPROVED, SO, OKAY, GOT IT.
IS THAT, I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT FACTORS AND I, I, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SO TRY MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE VOTING ON OR I ASKING ABOUT.
ANYTHING ELSE? UH, CHAIRMAN MOTON OR MS. UH, MR. WILLIAMS? ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW WOULD, UM, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK, IF SO, CAN YOU PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND HE'LL JUST STATE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN THAT.
MY NAME IS, UH, CAROL CAMACHO.
I'M THE OWNER OF 2 2 19 SEVENTH STREET.
UM, I WANNA SAY SOMETHING, YOU KNOW HOW THIS COME TO THIS PLACE.
UM, I FILL OUT APPLICATION AND JOHN ASKED ME FOR SO MANY THINGS AND SO I FILL IT OUT.
YOU KNOW, I, I, I THINK I PUT EVERYTHING, WHAT HE ASKED ME FOR TO HAVE THE GREEN LIGHT TO GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
SO I HAD THE GREEN LIGHT AND I WENT TO THE BUILDING APARTMENT, THE SAME TEAM.
AND THEN, AND THEN, UH, UM, I, I KNOW THE SETBACKS BECAUSE HE AND I WOULD TALK ABOUT THAT.
AND BY THAT TIME, IN MY MIND, I, I, I REMEMBER HE SAY IT'S GONNA BE 10 FEET, THE, THE SETBACKS.
BUT HE SAID CLEARLY YOU GOTTA KEEP THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE THAT'S GONNA BE YOUR SETBACKS.
BUT, BUT THE TIME WHY I STARTED WORKING AND DOING THE DEMOLITION, THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION AT ALL.
SO BASICALLY IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BUILDING WAS LEANING AND IT WAS REALLY, REALLY BAD CONDITION.
SO I, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ASKED ME FOR A NEW CONDITION.
SO I START DIGGING THE, THE, THE FOOTING PART.
AND, AND I THINK THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE MISTAKE RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE I, I HEAR, I REMEMBER HE SAID 10 FEET, THE STEPBACK.
SO I GO BY THAT, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE NO SURVEY BECAUSE NO ONE ASKED ME FOR A SURVEY FOR A NEW FOUNDATION.
SO, AND, AND, AND IN MY, AND I, I'M GONNA SAY THIS, I, I TRIED TO FILL IT OUT EVERYTHING LEGALLY.
SO I DON'T HAVE NO PROBLEMS. AND THAT'S MY MENTALITY.
BUT, UM, I REMEMBER WHEN WE, WHEN JOHN AND I, WE, WE, WE TALK ABOUT THIS, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION, HE KNEW WE WERE GONNA EXPAND IT.
AND, AND, AND I, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY KNOWS I I, I HAVE COUPLE SIGNATURE HERE FROM MY NEIGHBORS.
THE BUILDING WAS REALLY DANGER, IN MY OPINION.
REALLY DANGER FOR, FOR, FOR NOT, NOT EVEN FOR, IF YOU WANNA LEAVE, THERE IS GONNA BE A, A, A RISKY.
NOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, UH, IT WAS ON MISTAKE.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T WANNA HEAR, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GAIN A COUPLE INCHES BECAUSE I, I I, THE WAY I SEE IT IS DIFFERENT THE WAY HE SEE IT.
UM, I REMEMBER, UH, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 10 FEET AND
[00:30:01]
A HALF, 10 FEET ON THE BACKSIDE OF MY, OF THE BUILDING.AND IN THE FRONT PART I GOT 9.9 IN MY, IN MY VIEW, I ONLY HAVE THREE INCHES OFF.
BUT I KNOW IT, IT'S THREE INCHES IS THREE INCHES.
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, I ONLY DID BY, WITH MY MEASURE TAPE, I WAS TRYING TO KEEP THE RULES.
I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE SMART WITH YOU GUYS.
I'M JUST, I, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ASK ME FOR A SURVEY, FOR A SURVEY FOR THE NEW FOUNDATION, I WILL DO IT.
DEFINITELY I WILL HIRE SOMEBODY TO DO MY, MY, MY, MY NEW FOUNDATION.
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I I, I, I AM SORRY FOR THAT.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT HAPPY, YOU KNOW, I'M A BUILDER.
OKAY? I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THIS BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, UH, I'M PUTTING TOO MANY, TOO MANY EXCUSES.
AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I CAN, YOU GUYS HAVE APPROVE ME THIS, UH, VARIANCE AND I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT IS I HAVE TO SAY, I MEAN, I, I, I TRY TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO FOLLOW ALL THE COMPLIANCE FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
AND NO ONE SAY ANYTHING TO ME.
WE GOTTA DO THIS WITH THE SURVEY.
IF THEY SAY THAT, I MEAN, DEFINITELY I WANNA FOLLOW THE RULES, BUT I, THE UNION DEPART, COME SPITE THE FOOTINGS, YOU GOT GREEN LIGHT, THEN WE HAVE THE FORMS. HE INSPECTED GREEN LIGHT, POUR CONCRETE, NEW FRAMING.
I DIDN'T SEE NOTHING WRONG BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, IN MY EYES, I ONLY, I REMEMBER HE SAID 10 FEET, BUT NOW I, NOW I WAS HEARING WHAT HE SAID.
HE SAYS IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE 10 FEET, 10 UH, SEVEN INCHES.
THAT'S THE SETBACKS FOR THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
BUT, BUT THERE WAS NOT FOUNDATION, THERE WAS NOTHING.
I'M, I'M, I DON'T, UH, I'M SO SORRY FOR, FOR HAVING YOU GUYS HAVING THIS, UH, ISSUE.
AND UM, I, I, UM, I I DIDN'T MEAN TO MAKE THESE MISTAKES.
UM, I THINK THAT'S AFTERWARDS THAT HE SHARES AND THEN PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE CAN END AND THEN WE'LL ASK AFTER.
SO YEAH, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT ONE MORE ONE, ONE MORE THING CLEAR.
UM, AND LIKE I SAY, I, I CANNOT IN PHA MORE ABOUT THE, THE, THE, THE, THE NEW FOUNDATION.
UM, I, I THINK IF SOMEONE TOLD ME, UM, I GOTTA HIRE SOME, A SURVEY, I WOULD, I WOULD DO IT BECAUSE I, I, I, I, IN MY EYES, I DID EVERYTHING LEGAL.
AND I, I GOT ALL MY PERMITS THROUGH HIM.
I GOT ALL THE ELEVATIONS CLEARED.
I GOT WHATEVER THEY ASKED ME, THEY SAID, RAISE THIS, RAISE THAT, DO THIS, DO THAT.
I, I'VE BEEN DOING WHATEVER THEY SAY.
NOW, I, I I, I KNOW IT IS NOT, THE SETBACK IS NOT THE SAME.
BUT, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE PAPERS AND LIVING THE REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT.
IF YOU GO TO THE, IF, IF YOU, I, I HAVE PICTURES.
IF YOU ALLOW ME TO SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF THE, OF THE, THE OLD BUILDING AND HOW, HOW IT WAS, IT WAS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T THINK ALL, ALL TE SO IT WAS BUILT WITH LOCKS, YOU KNOW, AND 1, 1, 1 WALL BASICALLY WAS IN LIKE A LEANING THIS SIZE.
AND THEN, AND JOHN TOLD ME, YOU GOTTA DO IT ONE WORD FIRST AND THEN BUILD IT, AND THEN YOU CAN DO THE OTHER ONE AND THEN BUILD IT, BUT DON'T TAKE EVERYTHING DOWN.
SO, BUT IT WASN'T THAT CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION AND IT WAS BASICALLY, THIS WAS ALL TERM.
SO ONCE I TOUCH IT, BOOM, EVERYTHING FALLS OUT.
AND THEN HE SAID, YOU GOTTA KEEP A, KEEP A WALL THERE.
SO I I I REFRAME ANOTHER WALL WITH THE SAME MATERIAL TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, MEET THE, MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
AND LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY IS.
AND I HAVE, HAVE A LETTER HERE THAT I, UM, MY SON WENT TO TO TALK WITH THE DEALER.
SHE WAS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, HE SIGN IT.
AND I HAVE MY OTHER NEIGHBOR TOO, HE SIGN IT TOO.
THEY SAID THEY DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY PROBLEM WITH THE NEW BUILDING.
IN FACT, THEY ARE HAPPY WITH, WITH THE, WITH THE CONTRACTION.
ALRIGHT, NOW WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WELCOME MICHAEL MCCOOL TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.
JUST MAKE SURE YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES OR LEFT.
MICHAEL MCCOOL, MY COMMERCIAL ADDRESS IS SIX 13 NORTH COMMERCE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING OR ALMOST
[00:35:01]
IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING HERE.I WANT TO ADDRESS TOO THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S DONE A GREAT JOB OF BUILDING THIS BUILDING.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE BUILDING.
UM, AND I'M SPEAKING FROM, AS A FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR MULTIPLE, MANY YEARS AND FACING THIS EXACT ISSUE MULTIPLE TIMES.
UH, THAT'S WHY, UH, I WANT TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE ISSUES.
AND I MAY BE WRONG AND JOHN WILL CLEAR THAT UP.
UH, THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT IT REVERTS BACK TO THE, IT, IT WAS RESIDENTIAL AT ONE TIME.
IT WAS EMPTY FOR A GREATER THAN TWO YEAR PERIOD.
AND SO IT REVERTS BACK TO C ONE.
SO TECHNICALLY THIS COULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT.
TWO, YOU CAN ONLY PUT 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING.
CONTRACTOR SAID THE BUILDING WAS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
AND YET YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND SEE THAT OBVIOUSLY HE SPENT WAY MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE BUILDING THIS BUILDING.
SO ACTUALLY HE SHOULDN'T BE BUILDING THAT BUILDING.
THE OTHER THING IS CODE 1 75, 1 34 REQUIRES A FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
THIS IS SOMETHING OUR BOARD INSTI, UH, INSTITUTED BACK, UH, MANY YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF THESE EXACT PROBLEMS. SO WHAT REQUIRES IS JOHN COULD TELL YOU THAT THE, YOU HAVE TO GET A SURVEY BEFORE YOU BUILD THE FOUNDATION.
AFTER YOU BUILD THE SURVEY, YOU REALLY NEED, I MEAN, AFTER YOU BUILD THE FOUNDATION, YOU GET ANOTHER SURVEY TO MAKE SURE YOUR FOUNDATION IS WHERE IT SAYS IT IS.
'CAUSE I, MANY TIMES THEY WOULD COME AND THEY'D BE 2, 3, 4 INCHES OFF.
AND TECHNICALLY YOU CANNOT GIVE A VARIANCE FOR THIS ISSUE RIGHT HERE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE CODE VIRGINIA STATE CODE, UM, YOU HAVE TO, IT HAS TO HAVE A PRODUCE, AN UNDUE HARDSHIP.
UH, THE HARDSHIP CANNOT BE SHARED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE ZONE.
SAME Z UH, ZONING DISTRICT AUTHOR, THIS VARIANCE SHALL NOT BE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THE GRANT AND THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE INTENDED SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE.
COURTS HAVE RULED TOO THAT, UM, THAT UNLESS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE, UH, SOIL SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY OF THE UNDERLYING LAND ITSELF, YOU CANNOT ISSUE A VARIANCE.
UH, A UM, ALTHOUGH FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS AN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION, THE BOARD CANNOT AND SH SHALL NOT AND CANNOT CONSIDER THE FI, UH, PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE LANDOWNER OR THE APPLICANT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THE CURRENT OWNER CAN AFFORD TO USE OR DEVELOP THE LAND UNLESS HE HAS THE VARIANCE, THE SOIL, THE SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY CONDITIONS OF THE LAND.
UM, WE'VE ALWAYS REQUIRED PEOPLE THAT BY THE LOT NEXT DOOR, BY TWO FEET OFF THE NEIGHBOR IF YOU HAVE TO, IF YOU'VE GOT A ZONING OR MOVE THE BUILDING.
AND THAT'S TYPICALLY MAYBE HE CAN LEASE LAND FROM THE TOWN, FROM HIS ROAD.
BUT I PERSONAL OPINION IS YOU CANNOT ISSUE A VARIANCE ON THIS, UH, ON THIS APPLICANT.
AND THERE'S ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RULED, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER.
AND I HAVE BEEN IN THIS POSITION MYSELF.
I KNOW EXACTLY, UH, THAT'S A HARDSHIP.
BUT ONCE YOU START GIVING THIS VARIANCE, AND IF YOU DO VIOLATE IT, THEN THE TOWN COUNCIL WILL COME.
IF THEY FEEL THE SAME WAY, THEY'LL HAVE TO SUE YOU.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS, UH, THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AT THIS MOMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR IS THERE A MOTION? WELL, I'D LIKE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
FIRST, AM I ALLOWED TO EITHER, CAN ONLY ADDRESS THE, UM, APPLICANT? THAT'S WHO I WANT ADDRESS.
HE NEEDS TO COME BACK UP HERE.
SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE COME UP? I CAN COME PLEASE.
SIR, HOW MUCH HAD IT COST YOU TO BUILD THAT STRUCTURE? UM, ROUGHLY 110, 120, SOMEWHERE THERE.
IF WE WERE TO DENY THIS VARIANCE, HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST YOU TO FULFILL THE OBLIGATION OF THE VARIANCE? ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE.
IF WE WERE TO DENY THE VARIANCE, WHAT WOULD IT COST YOU TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH? WHAT THE BOARD, WITH WHAT THE TOWN IS NOT PERMITTED TO ALLOW YOU.
THAT WOULD BE, WOULD BE MORE THAN 200.
AND BASICALLY EVERYTHING I PAID FROM THE ORIGINAL, I ONLY, I PAID LIKE A 64 PLUS ANOTHER HUNDRED OR BE ANOTHER 250 SOMETHING, SOMETHING IN THAT AREA.
HOWEVER, FINANCIAL CANNOT BE A HARDSHIP.
UH, I I DIFFER WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION BASED UPON MY TRAINING IN RICHMOND.
[00:40:04]
IS THERE A MOTION MADAM CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT VARIANCE APPLICATION 2 3 0 0 7 5 SUBMITTED BY GUO C CAMACHO PEREZ FOR A VARIANCE FROM TOWN CODE CHAPTER 1 75 DASH 13 POINT C PERTAINING TO THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY OF TWO 19 EAST SEVENTH STREET, IDENTIFIED BY TAX MAP 20 A FOUR DASH FOUR DASH TWO BE APPROVED.IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD MADAM CHAIRMAN, THAT WHILE THIS IS NOT PART OF WHAT WE DISCUSS, UM, ARE PART OF WHAT WE BASE THE DECISION UPON THE BRIEF, ONE OF THE REASONS I JOINED THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, AND ONE OF THE REASONS I JOINED THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PEOPLE IN THE SENATE FRONT ROYAL.
AND THESE PEOPLE TOOK A PIECE OF CRAP HOUSE AND PUT A DAMN NICE HOUSE ON IT.
AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THIS TOWN IS QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND WE FINALLY HAVE SOMEBODY WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
AND SHAME ON US IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T PROGRESS TO HELP WITH THIS AND WE HAVE THE, WE HAVE THE LEEWAY TO DO IT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 INCHES.
AND I, I JUST THINK IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE FOR US NOT TO APPROVE IT.
AND PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF ZONING IS TO MAINTAIN THE LAWS, UM, AND TO KNOW THE LAWS.
SO IT'S NOT JUST TO GRANT PEOPLE PERMISSION TO DO THINGS THAT GO AGAINST THE LAW, AND I RESPECT THAT, BUT I DIFFER WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.
AND I FEEL, AND I FEEL THAT WE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO APPROVE THIS.
AND IF WE DON'T, THEN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE AND THE COURTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OVERTURN THIS.
THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, SETBACK, WHAT'S THE, I SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT I I DON'T KNOW IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
WHAT'S THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK? THOSE, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT REACH OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT.
UH, ONE THING I WILL POINT OUT, UH, THAT WAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT ABOUT THE FOUNDATION LOCATION SURVEY, THOSE ARE REQUIRED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
HOWEVER, THE COUNTY PERMIT THAT THEY ISSUED WAS FOR RENOVATIONS AND REMODELING.
AND IT DID NOT STATE ON THERE THAT A FOUNDATION LOCATION WAS REQUIRED AND THE TOWN DID NOT PUT THAT ON THE TOWN PERMIT.
BECAUSE AT THE TIME THE ZONING PERMIT FOR THE TOWN WAS, WAS FOR SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
SO THAT HELPS YOU WITH THE FOUNDATION LOCATION.
THE COUNTY PERMIT DIDN'T FLAG THAT AS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I MEAN, I, MY, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE.
BUT I ALSO HAVE LIKE, I THINK EVEN THE STAFF, AND I DON'T WANNA MISQUOTE, HAS INDICATED THAT THERE'S SOME MAJOR ISSUES WITH OUR ZONING AND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REDO IT.
SO I, I AM, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE ARE GONNA PEN PENALIZE SOMEONE OR NOT RUN A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF EXISTING WHEN IT COULD CHANGE IN THE HOPEFULLY NEAR FUTURE.
AND I AGREE LIKE BLIGHTED, I MEAN THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'VE TALKED TO THEM LIKE THERE BLIGHTED BUILDINGS IS SUCH AN ISSUE.
WE SEEM TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ENFORCING
LIKE, LIKE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA PENALIZE SOMEONE FOR LIKE YOU SAID, BUILDING A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA PENALIZE THE PEOPLE THAT LET IT GET THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IN THE WORDS OF VOLTAIRE, VOLTAIRE STATED THAT COMMON SENSE IS NOT SO COMMON.
AND I THINK IT'S COMMON SENSE TO ALLOW FOR A 10 INCH VARIANCE GIVEN ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THESE GOOD PEOPLE HAVE MADE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS A HARDSHIP HERE MORE THAN JUST FINANCIAL IN THAT THERE'S A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS HE WENT THROUGH THAT NOT, NOT EVERYTHING WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM.
AND IN GOOD FAITH, I FEEL LIKE HE YEAH, BUT I'M, I'M KIND OF CONCERNED LIKE WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED IN RICHMOND ABOUT FINANCIAL IMPACT NOT BEING APPLIED IN SOME, SOME SITUATIONS.
IT'S RIGHT HERE THAT IT HAS TO BE A HARDSHIP DUE TO PHYSICAL CONDITION RELATING TO THE PROPERTY.
AND IT, AND IT DEFINES PHYSICAL CONDITION AS THE PROPERTY'S NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS, SIZE, SHAPE, EXCEPTIONAL TOPO TOPOGRAPHY CONDITIONS AND ANY OTHER SIMILARITIES AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.
SO THAT'S THE HARDSHIP WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THAT, IN THAT ALONE.
WELL, WHY, WHY DID THE FOUNDATION MOVE? WHAT DID, DID ANY OF THOSE HAVE AN EFFECT OF WHY THE FOUNDATION MOVED TOWARDS THE STREET A LITTLE BIT? BECAUSE HE JUST, HE BUILT IT ON HIS OWN.
[00:45:01]
BIGGER THAN HIS THAT, THAT'S IT.IF YOU LOOKED, HAVE YOU NOTICED IN THE ORIGINAL PREVIEW HE HAD GREATER THAN 13 FEET ON THIS SIDE AND 10 FEET ON THIS SIDE.
SO IF HE JUST WOULD'VE BUILT IT BIGGER ON THIS SIDE, IT WOULD'VE, YOU KNOW, HE HAD AMPLE SPACE.
'CAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT TOO.
BUT WE CAN'T CLAIM NARROWNESS.
BUT NOW WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GONNA PENALIZE THIS GUY $200,000 BECAUSE OF 10 INCHES.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE LOSS STATE.
I, I DIFFER WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.
IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT HERE THOUGH.
I, AND IT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT MADAM CHAIRMAN.
AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO INTERPRET IT LIKE THAT.
I COMPLETELY DIFFER WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION.
AND IF I'M WRONG, THEN I'LL LEAD CROWE.
IF IT GOES TO THE COURTS, THEY DID EVERYTHING IN GOOD FAITH, DID EVERYTHING THEY WERE ASKED TO DO, AND THEN IT CAME DOWN TO A MISUNDERSTANDING OF 10 INCHES AND WE'RE GONNA PENALIZE 'EM $200,000.
AND I BELIEVE THE COMMENTS SET SHOULD PREVAIL.
AND THAT'S WHAT I ASKED OF MY FELLOW MEMBERS.
BUT IF YOU BREAK THE LAW AND YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A LAW, YOU CAN'T SAY WHEN YOU'RE IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE.
SO, UM, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? IT ALSO STATES IN THERE THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIANCES BEING FEW AND FAR BETWEEN AND THE DIFFICULTY OF BEING ABLE TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
UM, IT MUST MEET THESE STRICT ADHERING POINTS AND TERMS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY DID EVERYTHING.
THEY WERE ASKED TO DO THAT WITH THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF 10 INCHES.
I RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR A VOTE.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION TO BE HAD? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
MS. POTTER, CAN YOU DO A ROLL CALL PLEASE? BUT OH, SORRY.
CAN I, CAN I SAY IT IT, WHEN IT SAID, WHEN IT SAID NO SUCH VARIANCES SHALL BE AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD UNLESS IT FINDS THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CHAPTER WOULD PRODUCE UNDUE HARDSHIP.
THAT SUCH HARDSHIP IS NOT SHARED GENERALLY BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT IN THE SAME VICINITY.
HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THAT? SO IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THOSE HARDSHIPS THAT I MENTIONED.
SO PROPERTY NEARNESS, SHALLOWNESS, SIZE, SHAPE, EXCEPTIONAL TO TOPOGRAPHY CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.
SO THAT'S THE HARDSHIP THAT THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE AND SHOW EVIDENCE FOR, FOR A VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED.
AND THERE WAS NONE OF THAT THAT WAS SHOWN.
IT HAS TO BE ALL A, B, AND C LIKE ALL THREE.
THERE'S FIVE, FIVE THINGS THAT I HAVE TO OH, RIGHT.
WHEN IT SAYS NO SUCH VARIANCE SHALL BE AUTHORIZED THE BOARD, UNLESS IT FINDS A, THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION B THAT SUCH HARDSHIP IS NOT SHARED GENERALLY BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT OF THE SAME VICINITY C, THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF SEDENTARY WILL NOT BE A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WILL NOT BE CHANGED BY IT.
HAVE TO MEET ALL THOSE, ALL THREE.
SO YEAH, IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT HAS TO MEET THOSE THINGS IN ORDER TO BE GRANTED RESPECTFULLY.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE.
MR. MOTON? I AM GONNA HAVE TO SAY NO.
SO WE HAVE TY VOTE AND THEREFORE IT'S DENIED.
I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT MY RESIGNATION YET AGAIN.
AND FOR THE FINAL TIME TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
I DID NOT GET ON THIS TO BE PART OF THE JUST SAY NO COMMITTEE AND TO RUIN MY COMMUNITY.
HAVE A PLEASURE MS. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS A RECOURSE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS GOING TO BE, THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED NOW? UM, IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN MENTION TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS? 'CAUSE 'CAUSE THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MAYBE, MAYBE SOME, CAN WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM TO,
[00:50:01]
YOU KNOW, CHANGE THIS AREA TO KEEP THAT IN COMPLIANCE? THAT'S A WHOLE PLAN.AND THEY WERE ALREADY GRANT, SO THEY'RE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING.
BUT IF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THIS AREA TO MAKE IT NON-CONFORMING, CAN WE MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THEM? 'CAUSE I LIKE THE HOUSE.
I DON'T LIKE IT, BUT I HAVE TO APPLY THE LAW HERE.
IT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD, RIGHT? BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
AND SO IT IS ULTIMATELY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO EVERYTHING TO CONFORM TO THE LAW.
THE WAY IT'S, I I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO AS A BOARD AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE SINCE THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF MAKING THEIR CHANGES SO THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT CAN BECOME, I DUNNO IF THE BOARD CAN, BUT IF YOU INDIVIDUALLY WOULD LIKE TO, BUT THAT WOULD STILL BE AFTER THE FACT.
SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULDN'T, BUT THEN IT WOULD BE CONFORMING, RIGHT? I MEAN IT WOULD NOT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY MAKE THE SETBACK.
BUT I MEAN IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY 'CAUSE IT, IT WOULDN'T ONLY AFFECT THAT PROPERTY.
IT WOULD BE ALL THE PROPERTY ZONED IN THAT, IN THAT DISTRICT ALL OVER TOWN.
THEN THAT WOULD BE THE NEW SETBACK.
SO THEY JUST HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK IS.
THEY MAY CHANGE THE SETBACK, THEY MAY NOT, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A GIVEN THAT THEY'RE GONNA CHANGE IT, BUT CERTAINLY SHARE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA SEND AN EMAIL, I CAN FORWARD IT TO 'EM AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANNA PUT ANYTHING IN WRITING, I CAN FORWARD IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I AND DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING THEY WOULD CONSIDER.
'CAUSE I, I DO NOT LIKE THIS AT ALL.
DID WE WANT TO MEET, TO GO OVER THE BYLAWS? YEAH, I, I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE MEET NEXT TIME TO GO OVER SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED AT THE LAST MEETING WITH THE BYLAWS.
DO YOU WANNA HAVE A WORK SESSION SO YOU CAN DIS DIS DISCUSS IT? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO HOLD IT AS A REGULAR MEETING? UM, WORK SESSION? WE CAN MAKE IT A WORK SESSION.
I ALREADY KNOW THE SUGGESTIONS, BUT MM-HMM.
AND THAT WAY YOU CAN HAVE DISCUSSION AND, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANNA DO AND MORE OF A WORK SESSION VERSUS A MEETING.
'CAUSE THEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE MORE FREEDOM TO JUST TALK JUST IN A SECOND.
SO WE'LL ADD WELL, WE, YOU MADE A MOTION TO DO THAT.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? I SECOND.
THEN THE WORK SESSION WILL BE THE THIRD TUESDAY OF JANUARY, WHATEVER THAT IS.
UM, ACTUALLY THAT'S GONNA BE A DIFFERENT DAY BECAUSE MONDAY, LET ME THINK HERE, COUNSEL.
AND EVERYBODY HAS A COPY OF THE BYLAWS IF YOU GUYS WANNA LOOK AT 'EM AND, MM-HMM.
IF YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE IT, I'M HAPPY TO SEND IT TO YOU AGAIN.
EMAIL IT, WHATEVER YOU SEND IT VIA EMAIL.
AND WE ALSO HAVE, BUT YOU HAVE A, A MOCKED UP VERSION OF IT, LIKE THE, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING IN TODAY'S AGENDA.
AND THAT TALKS ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT WERE DIFFERENT IN, YOU KNOW, OUR BYLAWS VERSUS ROBERT'S AND STATE AND STUFF.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF LOOK AT THAT AND COMPARE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOIN THE MEETING? I MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
WE CAN DO A VOICE FOR THAT IF YOU WANT.