Planning: March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes

March 7, 2005 Meeting Minutes

Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes
March 7, 2005

Members Present:     John Bradshaw, Kim Cash, Gifford Childs, Goffrey Miles, Linda Russell

Staff Present:         Fred Boger, Betty Fortune

Applicants Present:     Ms. Donna Adams, Mr. Jeffrey Fletcher, Mr. and Mrs. Lars     Lerebourg, and Ms. Sallie B. Fisher

Call to Order:        Mr. Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room.

Approval of Minutes:    Minutes from the February 7, 2005 meeting will be approved at the April meeting since one item tonight is a continuation of the Feb ruary meeting. One correction was noted by Mr. Childs: on page 3, paragraph 3, the name is Mrs. Lynn Stevenson rather than Mr.

Mr. Bradshaw reviewed speaker guidelines (see file) and asked for cooperation from the audience.

Variance #2005-001 ö Donna Adams ö Continuation from February 7, 2005 Meeting

Mr. Boger stated that at the last meeting there were unanswered questions and more information that was needed. Ms. Adams installed a manufactured home on Naked Mountain Road without checking setbacks or obtaining a building permit. One side is 41 feet from the center of the road. The side yard is more than 10 feet. It appears the mobile home is on her property which goes almost up to the gate. No additional information has been received from the Health Department on drainfield location. At the February meeting the Board asked Ms. Adams to have the Health Department determine whether the manufactured home could be placed on the property so that it met the setback requirements as well as the Health Department regulations.

Ms. Adams stated that she contacted the Health Department in Charlottesville. The reason the trailer is too close is that she was going by the site plan for the septic and the Health Department was not aware of the 55 foot setback. To get another site plan, she would have to hire a private soil analyst which would be an additional $700. A contractor to do the work would be $1800. Since the February meeting, more work has been done ö waterways have been cleaned which cost $500. To move the trailer 12 feet would cost a total of $2700 or more which would be a financial burden. She measured the building across the street which is on Mr. Bradleyâs property and itâs only 31 feet from the road.

Mr. Bradshaw confirmed with Ms. Adams that she didnât know about the 55â setback. She said that Tom Eick with the Health Department didnât mention it to her. When she talked with the Health Department in Charlottesville, Jack McClellan said it was not their concern. The trailer has already been placed 10â back from the original location.

Mr. Childs asked Mr. Boger if a new site plan would be required if she moved the trailer again and was advised that no site plan is required for a single family dwelling. Ms. Russell talked with the Health Department and they are concerned that their drawing does not reflect whatâs on the property. They have no way of redrawing it even if itâs their error. Mr. Boger stated that Planning and Zoning provides building setbacks only. In this case, the contractor who set this home up does not have a license in the County. The decision the Board needs to make is whether this was an honest mistake.

Mr. Bradshaw opened the public hearing.

Timothy Bradley stated that he was in the process of having his property surveyed. He did mark the boundary line between his property and Ms. Adamsâ ö he was not trespassing. His deed reads, in part: ãAll that certain tract or parcel of land containing 4 acres, more or less,·together with all buildings, fixtures and improvements thereon and rights, privileges and appurtenances·including certain water rights and incidental rights hereinafter mentioned, fronting on State Route 694·ä   He marked the survey and was sent a letter concerning trespassing. His concern is his own well. Ms. Adams septic was moved back before she purchased the property. He will get a survey to update County records.

Mr. Bradley had prepared a poster with pictures of the manufactured home, his own property, the cemetery, and a hand-drawn plat. He says the deed says he owns property on both sides of the road. The measurement of his building that Ms. Adams referred to is legal. It is 50âoff the property line. He repeated that heâs in the process of getting his land surveyed. The deed states ã4 acres more or less on both sides of the road. Again, heâs concerned about his well. The cemetery location is incorrectly shown on County maps. Mr. Boger agreed that the tax map is not 100% accurate for this area.

The date of the deed was 1986. The property was deeded to him in 1999. Mr. Bradshaw asked if the state road changed at any time after the deed. Mr. Bradley said it probably changed in 1966. He showed pictures to Mr. Boger, who said the Board must go by the plat of record and that a decision must be made at this meeting since the 60-day limit has been reached.

Ms. Adams provided a copy of Mr. Bradleyâs deed which stated ãland fronting on 694.ä Her deed, provided also, says ãfronting on 694.ä (See file for copies of both deeds.)

Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that Bradleyâs deed says, ã·residue of 4.29 tract...fronting on State Route 694.ä That could be interpreted either way ö both sides or one side of the road. He asked whether the highway took .29 acres and conveyed it to Mr. Bradley. Mr. Boger stated that the .29 acres is the cemetery as described in the deed. Mr. Bruguiere pointed out that the deed said the cemetery must be kept to one-half an acre, but the deed says the cemetery is .29 acres.

Mr. Childs reminded everyone that the issue is the variance, not the property line dispute.

Mrs. Penny Beamer expressed concern that Ms. Adams has spent another $500.00 when the Board asked her not to spend additional money until a decision had been made. The building Ms. Adams referred to is a shed where 10â or smaller is allowed. A statement was made that the other dwelling is less than 55â and she doesnât know what buildings they are referring to. Putting aside the property line dispute, the Board can make a decision about the variance. Undue hardship doesnât have to be about money. She hasnât heard that the trailer canât be moved and still meet the setback requirements. It sounds like this is convenience, not a hardship. Claiming no knowledge of building permit sets people up to other problems. The zoning ordinance shows several criteria for hardship: (a) That the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; (b) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; (c) That the authorization of such variance will 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; (d) That no rise will be created in the water level during flood conditions in a floodway, as defined in Article 10, as a result of issuing a variance. Mrs. Beamer said she was having difficulty determining which criteria would apply. She also quoted from Article 14-2-4: ãNo variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.ä She feels the variance should be granted only if Ms. Adams canât place the home elsewhere on the property.

Mr. Bradshaw verified that Mrs. Beamer is a neighbor across from the cemetery, first house on the right.

Mr. Boger then stated that if Mr. Bradleyâs drawing is accepted, Ms. Adams doesnât need a variance. The variance requested is 41â and according to Mr. Bradleyâs drawing, she only needs a 25â back yard setback. Mr. Bradley quickly retrieved his drawing from Mr. Boger.

Ms. Cash stated that the Board has to operate on the best information available at this time. We have to base our decision on the County records. Ms. Russell asked if the trailer can be moved back to satisfy setbacks. Mr. Boger responded that if the trailer is moved, all piers would be out of line. The septic system could probably be used. Ms. Adams said she thought the continuation was based on Health Department information. She got a quote for soils work from a private engineer which she thought that would satisfy the Boardâs questions. Ms. Russell spoke with Gary in the Health Department and asked that he go back and evaluate the septic. The Health Department is unable to do that.

Mr. Bradshaw asked Ms. Adams and Mr. Bradley if they wished a continuation. Ms. Adams said she didnât. She feels sheâs right on the survey. Mr. Bradley said he would like to because the survey was done in 1966. Mr. Bradshaw said the property lines should not have changed ö the pins should be in the same area. Itâs difficult to determine where the cemetery is on paper. He once again confirmed with Ms. Adams that she didnât want to postpone the decision.

Mrs. Lynn Stevenson questioned the 60 days Mr. Boger referred to earlier and was told the 60 days is calculated from the date of the application, not the date of the first hearing.

Mrs. Beamer added that the Board should consider the intention of why the ordinance was established, i.e., setback requirements for emergency vehicles, etc. The bottom line is that itâs 41â from the road and granting the ordinance is not in the spirit of the ordinance.

The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Russell stated that at the last meeting several citizens expressed displeasure with the appearance of the mobile home. There is not sufficient information from the Health Department and she would not vote to approve the variance. Mr. Bradshaw asked for further clarification of her statement and Ms. Russell added that if the Health Department would allow Ms. Adams to move the drainfield, no variance would be needed. Mr. Bradshaw reiterated that the Health Department has no control over setbacks, only location of drainfields, and Mr. Boger added that the decision of the Health Department was dependent on where soils would perk.

Ms. Cash stated that if the site shown on the Health Department was the only site where the trailer could go, that would constitute hardship. There is not enough information from the Health Department who had told her she could move the trailer back 10â. The question is whether she can move elsewhere on the property and thus meet the setbacks and whether it can be moved more than 10â and still meet the requirements. Ms. Cash doesnât feel Ms. Adams has established a hardship at this time.

Mr. Childs agreed that a correct site plan would be helpful. The hardship seems to be with other residents in that it changes the character of the neighborhood. However, setbacks are the only concern of the BZA. Ms. Adams did not go through proper channels and this could set a precedent. Mr. Boger said the Board could grant a variance if a mistake is made, i.e., error on the part of the mover.

Mr. Bradshaw asked Ms. Adams if she wanted to continue the hearing until next month and asked Mr. Bradley the same thing. Ms. Russell clarified that Ms. Adams is the applicant and therefore is the only one who can make the request. Ms. Adams said that she would like to get it settled tonight. $3000 is a lot to spend for 12â.

Mr. Bradshaw withdrew himself from the voting since he was not in attendance at the last meeting. Mr. Boger stated that the motion needed to mention hardship (or lack thereof) based on the situation ö not the appearance of the structure.

Ms. Adams said that in her conversation with Tom Eick of the Health Department, the trailer was located in the best place on the lot for drainage. The trailer had been occupied for one year with an extension cord for power. She is not trying to make the area look bad.

Ms. Russell made a motion not to approve Variance #2005-001 for Donna Adams based on the fact that the hardship was created by the owner, and there is not sufficient information to show that a variance is necessary. Ms. Cash seconded the motion. Mr. Bradshaw abstained and motion passed 4-0. Variance was denied.

Ms. Adams asked what her next step would be and was told that she could appeal to the Circuit Court within 30 days of the decision or relocate the trailer.

Variance #2005-002 ö Jeffrey L. Fletcher

Mr. Jeffrey Fletcher is requesting an interpretation of Section 4-1-8, Home Occupations. Mr. Fletcherâs father, Gordon Fletcher, constructed a building on his farm at 1615 River Road, Faber, Virginia, to work on his farm equipment. Jeffrey Fletcher is a welder and the firm he was employed with recently went out of business. As a result, he has started his own welding business and has approval from Gordon Fletcher to have this shop approved as a home occupation location so that welding work can be done at home. The property is zoned Agricultural, A-1, and is approximately 124 acres in size.   A lot of requests for home occupations are in a grey area of the zoning regulations. The ordinance does not specifically say they are permitted and it is left for interpretation. In considering this request, the Board must carefully consider what the impact will be in other districts and locations. This home occupation doesnât seem to fit into A-1; however, if Mr. Fletcher repairs agricultural implements, it could be considered agricultural use. Mr. Boger showed photographs of the location of the shop.

Ms. Russell questioned the impact on residences in the area. Mr. Boger said that home occupations are limited by the number of employees. Ms. Russell asked if this could be covered by a boundary adjustment since the son will be operating on his fatherâs property. Mr. Boger said that was possible, but the question remains of whether this is a permitted home occupation. Home Occupation B is permitted in A-1 only.

Mr. Jeffrey Fletcher stated that the purpose of the shop from the beginning was to work on farm equipment. He was hired in 1987 as a licensed contractor. The company he worked for did all in-house work. Last year his hours were cut back and the company started out-sourcing. He has been using the building when needed, and is trying to do whatâs right. Eighty-ninety percent of his work is agricultural, i.e., wineries, where the shop is used to fabricate parts which canât be done on-site. UPS occasionally makes a delivery of metal, but there is no traffic impact. Clean-up has been done to keep the area close to the house in good condition. He does on-site work for a dairy in Crozet, and does very little work on construction equipment. He stated that he doesnât want to work where heâs not supposed to. He works for and with Faber Fire Department and has letters of recommendation from area residents.

Ms. Cash verified that a bulk of his work is done at the customerâs site and that he was not storing vehicles there. Mr. Fletcher said he makes the parts in the shop and transports them on his pick-up.

The public hearing was opened.

Carter Smith ö next door neighbor ö spoke in favor of what Mr. Fletcher needs to do. He has no objection and offers his support. He said this work does not affect the neighborhood adversely.

The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Childs abstained from voting. He may be requesting bids from Mr. Fletcher on a job for his company.

Ms. Russell asked if A-1 is the only district that allows Class B home occupations. Mr. Boger replied that SE-1 allows them also.

Mr. Bradshaw asked if there was a motion or recommendation from the PC. Mr. Boger said that a motion would be more appropriate and helpful if the decision is challenged. Ms. Russell then made a motion to interpret ãHome Occupations Class Bä to include welding shop for Jeffrey Fletcher for work done inside the building, a majority of which is in connection with agricultural work. Since Class B home occupation is only permitted in A-1 and SE-1, it is appropriate for this occupation. Mr. Miles seconded the motion. Mr. Childs abstained and motion passed 4-0.

Variance #2005-004 ö Lars and Anne Lerebourg
Mr. Boger reported that the Lerebourgs are requesting a variance to Section 2-2 of the zoning ordinance in order to construct a storage building on their property on Cub Creek Road for the purpose of storing equipment and material in preparation for building their primary residence. The variance can be granted if the building is not used for a residence and if they begin building the primary residence in a certain period of time. Drawings have been submitted. No opposition has been received from anyone in the neighborhood.

Mr. Lerebourg described their plans to build. He bought a bulldozer and wants to have a building to enclose it so that everything will look nice, even while building. They plan to start building the primary residence very soon, definitely within the year. He has ãlotsä of stones on his property which must be moved and/or used. The barn (storage building) will be 25â wide and 36â long. The roof will be green. (See drawing in file.)

The public hearing was opened and closed, with no comments forthcoming. (Note: Mr. Warren Fitzgerald wrote on the sign-in sheet: ãIâm in favor of your request.ä)

Ms. Russell made a motion to approve Variance #2005-004 for Lars and Anne Lerebourg to allow construction of a storage building, with the following conditions:
1)   The building may not be used for a residence.
2)   Construction of the home must begin before March, 2006.
Mr. Childs seconded the motion and motion passed 5-0.

Variance #2005-005 ö Sallie B. Fisher
Mr. Boger reported that Ms. Fisher is requesting a variance to be able to use a second manufactured home as a storage building. Her property is located at 230 Claypool Road (Tax Map #64-A-50). There is also a derelict house on the property which is just a shell of a building. Ms. Fisher has been using the manufactured home for storage for some time. In March of 1997, BZA denied a variance to place a second manufactured home on the property. In January, 2005, a zoning violation notice was sent because a second manufactured home was on the property. In February 2005 Ms. Fisher applied for this variance. In the past there have been numerous violations for junk being on the property. Some cleaning up has been done ö some progress has been made. Itâs better now than in the past. If the variance is granted, it should be with the following conditions:
1)   The old house must be removed within a given period of time.
2)   The manufactured home must not be used for residential purposes. (There is no septic or power to this building, and a visit to the property revealed that no one was living in the building.)
It was clarified that the acreage for this lot is .50 rather than 1 acre as it appeared on the Staff report.

Ms. Cash asked Mr. Boger about the ãno actionä items mentioned in the Staff report. (Note: January 3, 1994 ö Planning Commission took no action for a special use permit to place a manufactured home on the property.) Mr. Boger said that no action was taken because it was considered a replacement of the existing home on the property at that time. There have been several requests denied in the last few years. At one point the Health Department gave Ms. Fisher a waiver for a privy, and one request for a travel trailer was also denied. (See Staff report in file.)

Ms. Cash asked, ãIf the existing house is removed and this manufactured home is used for storage, would Ms. Fisher be in compliance with the ordinance?ä Mr. Boger responded, ãYes.ä

Ms. Russell had visited the premise. There were 6 cars there ö 3 licensed and 3 unlicensed. There were also numerous car parts and 2 satellite dishes. She asked if this meets the Countyâs requirements for number of inoperable vehicles. Mr. Boger replied that the ordinance allows for a maximum of 2 inoperable vehicles.    Another major issue is how to remove the house that needs to be destroyed.

Mrs. Janet Allen, a next door neighbor, spoke for Ms. Fisher. She said that she and her husband were there to help Ms. Fisher fix up her property. The trailer is there and they know the house needs to come down, but they donât have a way of doing that. Financially, Ms. Fisher canât do all this work without help from her neighbors, who try to take care of each other. They went to the Health Department, but got no help about taking down the house. Itâs a fire hazard. Ms. Allen said she was not here to complain; she wants to help Ms. Fisher.

Mr. Bradshaw named a number of organizations that may be able to help with the demolition ö Boy Scouts, Ruritan Club, Nelson County Community Development Foundation, Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Russell stated that the BOS had suggested that, with Ms. Fisherâs permission, the house be pushed over on the Allenâs land and burned there. Mr. Boger said that if the house is torn down, it can be burned on the same property. If itâs taken elsewhere, the DEQ gets involved. Itâs too close to Ms. Fisherâs house to be burned down safely.

Mr. Gene Allen is a close property owner who is trying to help his neighbor. Ms. Fisherâs son stated that they want a decent home like everyone else. His mother is trying her best and the neighbors have been helpful. The house is too close to their home to burn it safely.

Mr. Tom Bruguiere (in the audience) stated that the situation is that if the house can be moved, they can be allowed to keep the trailer for storage. Benny Mays moved it in. The problem, as stated before, is that the house may be too close to the main residence to burn, even if it can be torn down and moved. Mr. Mays could be called and asked to come in and get the junk cars, which might be worth something to Ms. Fisher. You canât burn on someone elseâs property, and the landfill is too costly. The fire department is a possibility.

Ms. Fisher said she wanted to get rid of the house.

Ms. Russell made a motion to grant variance #2005-005 for Sallie Fisher to allow use of the manufactured home for storage, with the following conditions:
1)   The dilapidated house is destroyed by March 1, 2006.
2)   Junk cars and junk car parts are cleared up by June 1, 2005.
3)   The manufactured home is used for storage only ö not residential use.
4)   The exterior of the home used for storage will not be allowed to deteriorate.
Ms. Cash seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.

Other Business: There was a brief discussion regarding BZA officers. Ms. Russell made a motion that current officers continue in office. Mr. Miles seconded the motion and motion carried 5-0.

Adjournment: At 9:45 P. M., Ms. Cash made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Russell seconded the motion, and motion passed 5-0.

Next Meeting: April 4, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune
Secretary