7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 26, 2026

[4a. CUP-2026-100589 Torrence Hadden for Christopher Jones: conditional use permit to build a detached accessory dwelling unit at 7939 Yahley Mill Road, Varina. Parcel 835-688-0766. Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District. Code Section: 24-4406. Varina ]

DETACHED, EXCUSE ME, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 7939 YALE MILL ROAD IN THE VARENA DISTRICT.

MISS ROZMUS WILL BE PRESENTING THIS CASE. DID YOU WANT TO SWEAR THEM IN? I'M SORRY. DID YOU WANT TO SWEAR? YES. EXCUSE ME.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME DOING THIS MEETING. SO WE'RE ALL LEARNING TOGETHER HERE.

WOULD ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE BE STAND AND SWORN IN.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7939 YALE MILL ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE FOURTH MILE SOUTH OF DARBYTOWN ROAD IN THE VARINA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS A 6.5 ACRE.

THE PROPERTY IS 6.5 ACRES IN AREA AND IS IMPROVED WITH A 2304 SQUARE FOOT RANCH STYLE HOME, A SWIMMING POOL AND DETACHED GARAGE. THE PROPERTY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA IS ZONED A-1 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, WITH LOTS RANGING FROM 1 TO 10 ACRES IN SIZE.

THE DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE POSITIONED TO THE FRONT WEST PORTION OF THE LOT, APPROXIMATELY 90FT FROM YALE MILL ROAD. THE MAJORITY OF THE 6.5 ACRE LOT IS WOODED.

THE APPLICANT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN 2002, AND IS SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY.

[00:15:12]

THE PROPOSED ADU WOULD BE 780FT² IN FLOOR AREA AND ONE STORY IN HEIGHT.

IT WOULD BE LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, ABOUT 650FT FROM YALE MILL ROAD.

ARTICLE FOUR ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A PRINCIPAL USE, PERMITTED BY RIGHT, AND ALLOWS A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AS AN ACCESSORY USE.

THE FLOOR AREA OF THE ADU IS LIMITED TO 35% OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING OR 800FT², WHICHEVER IS LESS.

IN THIS CASE, THE 800 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION APPLIES.

THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR ADU IS 780FT², WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.

IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED ADU IS ONE STORY IN DESIGN AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING.

ON SITE PARKING FAR EXCEEDS THE CODE REQUIREMENT AND THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LOTS RANGING FROM 1 TO 10 ACRES.

BOTH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND THE PROPOSED ADU WOULD BE 600FT FROM YELLOW MILL ROAD AND OVER 450FT FROM THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR, WHO IS DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT AT 7979 MILL ROAD.

THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO. THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD, AND THE WOODS IN THE REAR YARD WOULD PROVIDE A GREAT NATURAL BUFFER DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING, THE LAYOUT OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY. THERE SHOULD BE NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE STAFF REPORT AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. RASMUS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR STAFF? QUESTIONS. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT THEN.

IF YOU ALL COULD GO TO THE CAN YOU GO TO THE PODIUM IN THE BACK, PLEASE, SIR. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. I'M CHRISTOPHER JONES, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS TORRENCE HADDEN. MY BROTHER IN LAW. THE REASON WE'RE REQUESTING TO DO THIS ON OUR PROPERTY IS ORIGINALLY THIS WAS HIS GRANDFATHER'S PROPERTY, AND WE PURCHASED IT WHEN HIS GRANDPARENTS PASSED AWAY.

MY WIFE AND I, HIS SISTER AND HE GREW UP ON THAT PROPERTY AND WE WERE YOU KNOW, HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIS RESIDENCE THERE IF POSSIBLE.

HIS, THE WHOLE REASONING BEHIND IT. YES. GOOD MORNING.

YES, IT'S REALLY BEEN A LIFELONG DREAM OF MINE.

LIKE I SAID, THERE'S BEEN MANY MEMORIES GROWING UP ON THAT PROPERTY.

AND EVER SINCE I WAS A CHILD, I ALWAYS WANTED A RESIDENCE THERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, SO I'M LIMITED TO THE SMALL HOUSE, BUT I'M PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE WITH THAT.

IT WOULD FULFILL MY DREAM. AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE.

THERE IS NO ONE ON WEBEX AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIR.

HEARING NONE, DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? HEARING NONE. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD, MOTION WOULD BE IN ORDER.

AND WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MASSIE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. GREEN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.

CASE IS APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ONE SECOND TO GO BACK AND JUST MAKE THE AUDIENCE AND THE BOARD AWARE THAT WE HAD RECEIVED ONE WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA THIS MORNING.

THAT IS VARIANCE. 2026 100546 TREK PROPERTIES, LLC.

THAT WAS A VARIANCE FOR LOT WIDTH AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE VARINA DISTRICT.

AGAIN, THAT ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN SO NO ACTION IS NECESSARY. SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY EITHER IN THE ROOM OR ON WEBEX THAT WAS HERE FOR THAT CASE,

[5a. VAR-2026-100546 Trek Properties, LLC: variance from the lot width requirement and side yard setback to build a single-family dwelling at 4179 Oakleys Lane, Varina. The applicant has 55 feet lot width and 9 feet for both side yard setbacks where the Code requires 150 feet lot width and 20 feet side yard setbacks. The applicant requests a variance of 95 feet lot width and 11 feet side yard setbacks. Parcel 816-722-4144. Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District. Code Section: 24- 3204.D. Varina ]

THAT WILL NOT BE HEARD THIS MORNING. WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE INTO THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS QP2026100634.

TONY ENGLE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP UP TO SIX HENS IN THE REAR YARD AT 2415 HOME VIEW DRIVE IN THE THREE CHOP DISTRICT.

[4b. CUP-2026-100634 Toni Engle: conditional use permit to keep up to six hens in the rear yard at 2415 Homeview Drive, Mimosa Park, Three Chopt. Parcel 759-755-6436. Zoning: R-3, One-Family Residence District. Code Section: 24-4420.G. Three Chopt ]

WOULD ANYONE INTENDING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STAND, STAND AND BE SWORN IN THIS MORNING?

[00:20:06]

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? MR..

THANK YOU, MR. STEELE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2415 HOME VIEW DRIVE.

HOME VIEW DRIVE, ONE TENTHS OF ONE TENTH OF A MILE SOUTH OF WEST BROAD STREET IN THE THREE TROP MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

THE RANCH STYLE HOME, THE RANCH STYLE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IS SITUATED ON A 0.47 ACRE LOT AND IS 1006 67FT², WITH A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE REAR YARD. THE AREA SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R3.

ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT IS CHARACTERIZED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LOTS RANGING FROM ONE FOURTH TO ONE HALF ACRE IN SIZE.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO HAVE SIX HENS, NO ROOSTERS IN THE REAR YARD OF THEIR PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO PULL UP THE AERIAL. SO THE REAR YARD OF THIS PROPERTY HAS A FENCE THAT GOES THROUGH IT.

SO THIS IS ALSO HER REAR YARD. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS A PRINCIPAL USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR.

AND SECTION TWO ZERO. G AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW UP TO SIX HENS IN THE REAR YARD.

THE PROPOSED CHICKEN COOP MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF 30FT².

AND SHOULD BE LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE REAR YARD.

MISS ENGLE HAS PROVIDED THIS MAP OF THE GENERAL AREA OF WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, SO SHE CAN MEET THE SETBACKS, WHICH IS 25FT ON EACH SIDE AND WILL BE 40FT IN THE REAR.

THE COOP WILL BE 100FT AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT.

AND OVER 110FT AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT.

AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS WELL MAINTAINED, STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE SUGGESTION CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO KEEP THE HENS ENCLOSED, STORE, FEED SECURELY, CLEAN UP WASTE AND CONSULT A PEST CONTROL SPECIALIST.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. RASMUS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. RASMUS? HEARING NONE. THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

HELLO. GOOD MORNING. I'M TONY ENGEL, ENGLE. I'M INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS.

I RECENTLY RETIRED AND I'VE ALWAYS WANTED CHICKENS, SO I MOVED CLOSER.

BOUGHT THIS ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO. AND I'M LOOKING TO HAVE SIX HENS IN THE SECOND BACKYARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS ANGEL. DOES ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR A SINGLE.

OKAY. HEARING? NO QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON WEBEX THAT WHICH IS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE.

THERE'S NO ONE ON WEBEX FOR THIS ITEM, MR. LAWRENCE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE? OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT CONSISTS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS OVERALL ORDINANCE.

THE COUPE WOULD BE 100FT FROM THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR.

THE CONDITION ADDRESS FOOD STORAGE AND PEST CONTROL.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. GREEN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. BROADWAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY AND THE CASE IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIR. THE FINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION ON YOUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.

QP2026100689 HUNGRY LOU. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT INSIDE THE HOME.

[4c. CUP-2026-100689 Hongrui Liu: conditional use permit to build an Three Chopt accessory dwelling unit inside the home at 6001 Shady Willow Place, Shady Ridge, Three Chopt. Parcel 743-777-9289. Zoning: R-3C, One-Family Residence District (Conditional). Code Section: 24-4406. ]

AT 6001 SHADY WILLOW PLACE IN THE THREE CHOP DISTRICT.

WOULD ANYONE INTENDING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STAND TO BE SWORN? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES, MR. RASMUS. THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6001 SHADY WILLOW PLACE, ONE THIRD MILE NORTH OF THE KNUCKLES ROAD, AND THREE ONE THIRD MILE NORTH OF KNUCKLES ROAD AND THE THREE CHOP MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.

THE 15,900 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY IS IMPROVED WITH A COLONIAL STYLE HOME, TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT WITH A FINISHED BASEMENT.

[00:25:07]

THE PAVED DRIVEWAY. IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE FOUR CARS.

THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1999 AS PART OF THE SHADY RIDGE SUBDIVISION.

THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE HOME IN 2018. THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST IS ZONED R3C1 FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT.

THE 5.8 ACRE PARCEL TO THE WEST IS ON A ONE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A SECOND KITCHEN TO THE FINISHED BASEMENT, CONVERTING A 319 SQUARE FOOT AREA TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR AN ELDERLY PARENT. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE FOR AN ADU ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE 800FT².

THE PROPOSED ADU WOULD BE LOCATED IN EXISTING FINISHED BASEMENT THAT IS ALREADY PART OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ENTRANCE IS. IT'S A WALKOUT BASEMENT.

THE BASEMENT HAS A SEPARATE ENTRANCE NORTH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS EXISTED SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1999.

THE EXISTING SPACE ALREADY CONSISTS OF A BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND LIVING AREA.

THE APPLICANT JUST WANTS TO ADD A KITCHEN. THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT THE INTENSITY OF USE IN THE AREA, AS A TOTAL LIVING SPACE OF THE HOME IS NOT INCREASING.

STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE APPLICANT ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE HOA. THE HOA HAD NO COMMENTS BECAUSE HE IS NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MISS RASMUS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. SO I'M CORNELIUS HUSBAND.

SO I'M THE HOMEOWNER AT 60016 WILLOW PLACE. SO I'M REQUESTING APPROVAL TO ADD A SMALL KITCHEN IN MY EXISTING FINISHED BASEMENT FOR MY ELDERLY PARENTS IN LAW.

WE ARE A THREE GENERATION FAMILY AND THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO LIVE WITH US MORE COMFORTABLY AND SAFELY.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT FOR RENTAL.

IT IS ONLY FOR FAMILY USE. THE BASEMENT IS ALREADY FINISHED AND HAS A SEPARATE ENTRANCE.

WE ARE NOT EXPANDING THE HOUSE OR INCREASE ITS SIZE IN ANY WAY.

WE ALSO HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING ON OUR DRIVEWAY, SO THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON TRAFFIC OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE TRULY VALUE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WE DO IS RESPONSIBLE AND COMPLETE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LIU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. LIU? HEARING NO QUESTIONS. WE WILL NOW ASK IF THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST OR ANYONE ON WEBEX.

ANYONE ON WEBEX, MR. CHAIR? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? HEARING NONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE DWELLING UNIT WILL PROVIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING SPACE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS.

BECAUSE IT IS INSIDE THE HOUSE, IT SHOULD NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. GREEN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. BROADWAY? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THE CASE IS APPROVED. THANK YOU, MR. LIU. MR. CHAIR, AS NOTED, THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA VARIANCE 2025 OR 2026.

EXCUSE ME. 100546 TREX PROPERTIES LLC WAS WITHDRAWN, SO WE THEN MOVED TO VARIANCE 2026 100646.

RICHARD. RICHARD. BRADFORD. FRANKLIN. FRANKLIN.

[5b.VAR-2026-100646 Richard Bradford Franklin: variance from the rear yard setback to build a screened porch at 10929 Old Springfield Farm Road, Old Springfield Farm, Brookland. The applicant has 33 feet rear yard setback where the Code requires 45 feet rear yard setback. The applicant requests a variance of 12 feet rear yard setback. Parcel 762- 771-5563. Zoning: R-2AC, One-Family Residence District (Conditional). Code Section: 24-3308.D. Brookland ]

EXCUSE ME. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO BUILD A SCREENED PORCH AT 10929 OLD SPRINGFIELD FARM ROAD.

THIS IS IN THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS A 33 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, WHERE THE CODE REQUIRES A 45 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 12FT TO THAT REAR YARD SETBACK.

MR. PAUL WILL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM, AND IF THERE IS ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT REQUEST, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO. THANK YOU, MR. GOODLY. THANK YOU, MR. SECRETARY. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF STAPLES MILL AND MOUNTAIN ROADS.

[00:30:03]

IT IS A CORNER PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS A TWO STOREY HOME WITH A 14 FOOT BY 14 FOOT DECK ON THE BACK OF THE HOME THAT EXTENDS WITHIN 35FT OF THE REAR LOT LINE.

A PHOTO FROM THE APPLICANT. AS YOU KNOW, DECKS CAN CAN EXTEND TEN FEET UNDER THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK, SO A DECK THAT EXTENDS TEN FEET INTO THE 45 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REMOVE THE DECK AND REPLACE IT WITH A SCREENED PORCH.

THAT WOULD EXTEND TO WITHIN 33FT OF THE REAR LOT LINE, TWO FEET FURTHER THAN THE EXISTING DECK.

THIS WOULD EXCEED THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DECK, BUT ALSO AS A COVERED STRUCTURE.

A SCREENED PORCH MUST MEET THE SAME 45 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AS THE HOME.

AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE.

IN REVIEWING THIS REQUEST AND LOOKING AT ONE OF THE THREE THRESHOLD TESTS, WHETHER ANY ARE MET.

STAFF BELIEVES THE SETBACK IS REASONABLE. IT DOES NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANTS HAVE AN EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE DECK.

AND SO THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN UTILIZED SUCCESSFULLY.

ALSO MANY OF WHICH HAVE DECKS ON THE BACK OF THEIR HOMES.

AND THEN THE NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT SIDE HAS THE SAME SETUP.

WHILE THERE IS VEGETATION ON AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT.

LET ME SEE HERE. BECAUSE THERE'S VEGETATION AGAINST ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE ORDINANCE IS UNREASONABLE IN STAFF'S OPINION. ON THE SECOND TEST IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SETBACK REGULATION PREDATES THE SUBDIVISIONS RECORDATION IN THE HOME'S CONSTRUCTION.

AND FINALLY, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS INVOLVES ACCESSIBILITY FOR A DISABLED PERSON.

IF A THRESHOLD IS ASSESSED, THEN UNDER THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, ALL FIVE SUBTASKS MUST BE MET.

STAFF BELIEVES THIS IS A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.

YOU'RE TAKING AN EXISTING HOME. LET'S SEE HERE.

EXISTING HOME WITH A DECK THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAKING IT NON COMPLIANCE BY EXTENDING FURTHER INTO THE REAR YARD.

FINALLY, THE CODE OF VIRGINIA REQUIRES THAT THIS SITUATION IS NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRING OF A NATURE AS TO MAKE REASONABLY PRACTICAL THE FORMULATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS BOARD SEES 1 OR 2 OF THESE REQUESTS ALMOST EVERY MONTH.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU WROTE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BRINGING THIS TO THEIR ATTENTION AND SUGGESTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION, THE SUBTESTS WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE MET UNLESS AND UNTIL THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHANGES THE ORDINANCE.

ROUTINELY GRANTING SUCH VARIANCE REQUESTS ESSENTIALLY AMOUNTS TO THIS BOARD A JUDICIAL BODY, IN EFFECT AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IN CONCLUSION, STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE ANY OF THE THRESHOLD TESTS ARE MET AS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOPED SIMILAR TO OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANY HARDSHIP ITSELF CREATED AND AS NOTED, THESE REQUESTS ARE ROUTINELY SEEN BY THIS BOARD, MAKING IT A GENERAL AND REOCCURRING REQUEST FOR THESE REQUIREMENTS.

FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR.. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GOODLEY? I MAY HAVE SOME FOR YOU AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

MR.. THANK YOU SIR. HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NOW, PLEASE. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. STAFF. GOOD MORNING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. AS MR. GIDLEY POINTED OUT, I THINK VERY ACCURATELY, WE WANT TO ESSENTIALLY REMOVE THE EXISTING DECK THAT WE HAVE PUT A SCREENED IN PORCH AND EXACTLY ESSENTIALLY THE SAME APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FOOTPRINT.

MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND HONESTLY HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS ANY REAR SETBACK AND ULTIMATELY HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF TO TRY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION IS BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE SUPERVISORS, BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES AT LEAST, THIS IS THE WAY FOR US TO DO SOMETHING TO OUR HOME THAT WE'VE WANTED TO DO FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

AGAIN, THIS IS A DECK THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD.

THIS STRUCTURE WOULD BE FACING ESSENTIALLY OUR REAR NEIGHBOR.

WE DO HAVE THAT BUFFER, THAT NATURAL VEGETATION BETWEEN US.

AND LIKE I SAID, IT WOULD BE IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS SHOWN THERE, SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD IMPACT OUR REAR NEIGHBOR, AND CERTAINLY NEITHER TO THE RIGHT OR LEFT OF US.

[00:35:02]

IF MR. GIDLEY CAN SHOW THOSE, THE HOMES ARE CONSIDERABLY FAR AWAY.

THANKFULLY FOR, YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER OUR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AND RECOMMEND OR I GUESS, MAKE MOVE FOR APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU SIR.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE IN THE AUDIENCE FROM WEBEX THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE? THERE'S NO ONE ON WEBEX, MR. CHAIR. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MR.. MR..

CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN US AS TO HOW LONG THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THIS? THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE 45 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT TOOK EFFECT IN 1960.

SO THAT'S WHAT, 65 YEARS? YES, SIR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SCREEN PORCH? I DIDN'T CHECK THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE EXPANDED AERIAL THAT APPEARS ON THIS BLOCK SIDE.

THEY ALL HAVE DECKS AT THE REAR OF THE HOME, AND AS IT SHOWED HERE, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT SIDE ALSO HAS A DECK.

THERE IS ONE HOME IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAS A SCREENED IN PORCH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, I DID CHECK THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DID NOT SEE THAT HOUSE, BUT I MAY HAVE MAY HAVE MISSED ONE, BUT IT LOOKED CONSISTENT. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENTLY APPEARED TO HAVE BACKYARDS WITH DECKS AND ALSO DROVE INTO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME CASE. IS THIS LOT CONFIGURED ANY DIFFERENTLY FROM ANY OTHER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONE NEXT TO IT GOES BACK A LITTLE FURTHER.

AND THEN THESE DOWN HERE SEEM TO BE SMALLER THAN THE APPLICANT.

THERE'S NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE LOT THAT WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP.

NO, SIR. THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND A DECK SIMILAR TO OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WOULD YOU SAY, MR. GIDLEY, IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT THIS CORNER LOT BASICALLY SETS A STANDARD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND REAR YARDS.

AS WE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE R TWO DISTRICT IS A DISTRICT THAT HAS FAIRLY LARGE LOTS AND FAIRLY DECENT ROOM BETWEEN HOMES.

AND TO AN EXTENT, YOU CONSTRUCT A COVERED STRUCTURE UNDER THE SETBACK.

IT DOES SORT OF EAT AWAY AT THE SPACIOUSNESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT CAN SET A PRECEDENT BECAUSE, AS YOU NOTED, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN AND SAY, WELL, SUCH AND SUCH HAS THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY NOT ME? WELL THAT'S TRUE. AND ISN'T THE NATURAL BUFFER ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE ACTUALLY THICKER IF YOU GO DEEPER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I LOOKED AT OFTEN THERE IS A BUFFER ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT AS YOU GO FURTHER DOWN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BUFFER APPEARS TO BE DEEPER. AND YOU ALSO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BACKING UP TO REAR YARDS.

YOU HAVE A MORE SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE BETWEEN HOMES.

IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE BACKING UP TO SOMEONE'S SIDE YARD.

YES, SIR. YOU ARE BACKING UP, WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN. EXCUSE ME, SIR, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T.

I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS. I'M SORRY. MR.. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION THERE, MR. CHAIR? WELL, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S PROBABLY THE CASE THAT THIS THIS LOT DOES BACK UP TO A SIDE YARD PROPERTY WHERE AS YOU GO FURTHER DOWN THE STREET, STARTING WITH THE NEXT PROPERTY OR BACKING UP TO REAR YARDS INSTEAD, YOU HAVE MORE DISTANCE IN BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.

YES, SIR. MR. GILLIES, THE BCA HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. NO, SIR. THAT'S A FUNCTION OF THE ELECTED BODY, THE LEGISLATURE.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU ALL WROTE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, BECAUSE YOU ARE SEEING A LOT OF THESE.

AND THAT'S WHY THAT SUBTEST WAS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BECAUSE IT'S RECOGNIZED RECOGNIZING WHICH BRANCH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IF VARIANCES ARE ROUTINELY GRANTED, THE IMPACT OF THAT, IN EFFECT, IS THIS BOARD SAYING WE DON'T LIKE THE ORDINANCE? WE'RE JUST GOING TO APPROVE THESE AND ALLOW THE CODE AND EFFECT TO BE AMENDED, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND B, IF SO, HOW IT SHOULD BE AMENDED.

SO IT'S A DIVISION OF POWER. SEPARATION OF POWER SITUATION.

CORRECT. THIS BODY DID CONTACT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAYBE A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF AGO SUGGESTING THAT THE ORDINANCE BE REVISITED.

BUT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT HASN'T TAKEN PLACE YET.

[00:40:02]

IS THAT CORRECT? THE LAST I WAS AWARE OF IT. THERE IS AN MR. SEEING MAY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THERE IS ONGOING DISCUSSION OVER A WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND IF IT IS AMENDED, WHAT FORM THAT WOULD TAKE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE, YOU HAVE A TEN FOOT DECK, BUT NOW THEY WANT TO GO 12FT OUT.

SO IF THEY JUST SIMPLY SAID, I WANT TO GO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUILD UP ON TOP OF THEIR EXISTING DECK THAT GOES TEN FEET IN THE SETBACKS. INEVITABLY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET REQUESTS LIKE THIS ONE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO 12FT, WHERE THAT WOULDN'T EVEN ADDRESS IT. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE TOLD, WELL, IT'S ONLY TWO MORE FEET.

WHY NOT APPROVE THAT? SO EVEN AFTER THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL, WE CAN'T DEAL WITH WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. RIGHT. BUT THE BOARD HAS TO AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

BUT WE DEAL WITH THAT WHEN IT HAPPENS. WE CANNOT.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS TO DEAL WITH THAT WHEN ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS STAFF IS FACING NOW, BECAUSE INEVITABLY, EVEN IF YOU SAY, OKAY, A DECK CAN GO TEN FEET, AS LONG AS THE DECK IS WIDER THAN, SAY, HALF THE HOUSE IS WITH WILL ALLOW A SCREENED PORCH ON TOP OF IT, FOR INSTANCE. INEVITABLY YOU GET PEOPLE WHO COME IN AND WANT TO GO FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK.

SO AN AMENDMENT WOULDN'T SOLVE THAT PROBLEM AND WE'D BE BACK TO THAT SITUATION.

MR. GIDLEY, ONE THING I WOULD POINT OUT, MR. CHAIR, IS THAT MR. GIDLEY IS CORRECT THAT THE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED AND WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THIS YEAR.

THIS IS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION, AND SO THE BOARD IS ACTIVELY YOU KNOW, WOULD BE ACTIVELY CONTEMPLATING THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THOSE POTENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.

SO WE DO ANTICIPATE IN SOME MANNER IT WILL BE ADDRESSED.

AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE. BUT MR. GHIBLI IS CORRECT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT FORM THAT MIGHT TAKE IF IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE EXISTING LIMITS OF A, OF A STRUCTURE THAT MIGHT MEET THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

SO IT'S IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A SITUATION WHERE WE CAN OPINE ON WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE OR OTHER HYPOTHETICALS.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ACTIVELY BEING CONSIDERED, AND I THINK IT CONTINUES TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO TO WEIGH THAT AS PART OF THE LARGER PACKAGE OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.

ALSO, DIDN'T THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION DO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO? AND AT THAT TIME THIS REQUIREMENT WAS KEPT IN PLACE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED IN 2021.

IT WAS AN ENTIRELY NEW ORDINANCE REPLACING THE 1960 ORDINANCE THAT I REFERENCED A MOMENT AGO.

WE HAVE WE HAVE HAD CASES COME BEFORE US. I'M SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF.

YES, WE HAVE HAD CASES COME BEFORE US THAT WE HAVE APPROVED VARIANCES.

IF THERE'S A HARDSHIP DEMONSTRATED COULD BE A FAMILY MEMBER WHO'S DISABLED.

YES, SIR. MAYBE AN UNUSUAL CONFIGURATION A LOT.

MAYBE THE LOT BACKS UP TO, YOU KNOW, A NATURAL AREA OR UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

I DON'T SEE THOSE APPLY TO THIS CASE. THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU.

THE PREFERRED CONDITIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THIS CASE.

AND I THINK THAT WAS BACK IN 2012. AS I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF REPORT, THE PROPER CONDITIONS REQUIRED THAT ALL PORTIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOUSE HAVE A BRICK FOUNDATION. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT WOULD REQUIRE IN THIS CASE, MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THE PIERS WOULD NEED TO BE BRICK.

OKAY. SINCE IT'S A SCREENED PORCH. NOW, IF IT WENT TO A SUNROOM, THEN IT WOULD NEED A BRICK FOUNDATION, TYPICALLY. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU, MR..

ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. GOODLING? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. GIDLEY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN.

I'M A PROPONENT OF INDIVIDUALS. SEE, WE WE'VE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THINGS ARE CHANGING.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS CHAIR OF THE BOARD, WE WE WE WE SENT THIS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A LONG TIME AGO.

AND TO DATE, THEY HAVE NOT ACTED. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT CITIZENS SHOULD BE PENALIZED BECAUSE WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIRS. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S ONGOING.

BUT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS GOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS THE TREND PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO TAKE.

DEX. TAKE THE DEX AND CLOSE THE CLOSE THE DEX WITH WITH WITH THE SUNROOMS. AND AT THE END WITH THESE 11 MONTH ROOMS, SUN ROOMS, ADDITIONAL ROOMS. I SEE IT AS ONE. YOU'RE CREATING A VALUE TO THE HOME.

YOU'RE INCREASING THE VALUE OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR, YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

YOU'RE INCREASING THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY. YOU'RE MAKING AN ECONOMIC IMPACT BY HIRING CONTRACTORS, KEEPING PEOPLE AT WORK IN THESE GIVEN TIMES. TO DO THIS, YOU'RE BUYING OTHER THINGS FROM OTHER VENDORS TO COMPLETE

[00:45:08]

THIS. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU REALLY DON'T SEE A REAL DIFFERENCE.

I, MY, MY HOME LOOKS AT A NEIGHBOR WHO DID, BASICALLY DID THE SAME THING, TOOK THEIR DECK AND PUT A, PUT A RING ON IT. AND NOT ONLY DID THEY DO THAT, BUT THEY PUT UP A NICE FENCE.

AND WHEN I REALLY LOOK AT IT, I DON'T REALLY SEE A DIFFERENCE.

AND I'M NOT SUCH AN EXPERT THAT 1 OR 2FT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE FOR ME IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

AND AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HAS THE HOA WEIGHED IN AS HAVE HIS NEIGHBORS WEIGHED IN? AND I THINK WE'VE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT THINGS ARE CHANGING PEOPLE.

THIS IS A TREND. AND AT SOME POINT, MY WIFE IS GOING TO DO THE SAME THING TO ME.

AND, AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A STRONG MOTIVATING FACTOR BECAUSE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DO NOT USE MY DECK SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S HOT.

MY WIFE DOESN'T WANT TO GO OUT THERE AND, AND SIT AND GET MOSQUITOES.

AND I ALWAYS JOKE THAT IF I PUT A BLINDFOLD ON MY WIFE AND TOOK HER IN MY BACKYARD AND LEFT HER, SHE WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE THE HELL SHE IS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SHE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH GOING IN THE BACKYARD OR SITTING OUT THERE.

AND I DO EVERYTHING. I DO EVERYTHING ESTHETICALLY, TO MAKE MY DECK LOOK A PLEASING, A JUST FOR, FOR ESTHETIC PURPOSES, BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO USE MY, MY, MY BACK.

ME PERSONALLY, I CAN'T PUT ANY PLANTS OUT THERE BECAUSE THE SUN BURNS EVERYTHING UP.

IT'S HOT OUT THERE. YOU GOT TO GO OUT THERE AT CERTAIN TIMES.

YOU DO YOUR UMBRELLAS, YOU DO ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.

AND IT'S JUST IT'S JUST A PROBLEM. SO THE SOLUTION IS GOOD.

FOLKS ARE DOING. I FORTUNATELY, AM A POOR PERSON.

I CAN'T AFFORD TO DO THIS. AND SO I HAVE TO COMPROMISE.

SO I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A PROPONENT OF OF ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITHIN REASON WITH THEIR PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

I'M ALWAYS PERPLEXED AS TO IF WE CAN'T DO IT, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE BROUGHT TO US.

IF AND IF IT'S BROUGHT TO US, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN DO SOMETHING.

AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHALLENGE IT AFTER WE DO IT, THEN LET THAT PROCESS PLAY OUT.

BUT I WILL ALWAYS BE A PROPONENT FOR THESE KIND OF THINGS AND THESE HYPOTHETICALS.

WHAT IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND AND DECIDES THAT THEY WANT TO DO 12FT VERSUS THAT? WELL, IF THEY GOT A TEN ACRE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY GOT THE SPACE AND THEY CAN DO IT AND, AND ENABLES AREN'T COMPLAINING.

HOA ISN'T COMPLAINING AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHO, WHO CARES? YOU KNOW, IN TERMS I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE RULES IN PLACE.

YOU TOOK AN OATH RIGHT WHEN YOU CAME ON THE BOARD.

I TOOK AN OATH. BUT I ALSO AM OBJECTIVE. I'M ALSO OBJECTIVE.

AND IF I TOOK AN OATH. BUT THEN IF I CAN'T DO IT, THEN TELL ME.

THEN DON'T BRING IT BEFORE US. IF YOU. IF I TOOK AN OATH AND YOU'RE TELLING ME I CAN HAVE AN EXCEPTION TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT OATH, THEN I MAY WANT TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO TO WITH THAT THAT EXCEPTION.

SO IF I TOOK AN OATH AND YOU SAID I CAN'T DO IT, THEN TELL ME I CAN'T DO IT AND I WON'T DO IT.

THAT'S WHY. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT? YES. MR. CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, I WOULD SAY THAT TO MR. GREEN.

THAT STAFF'S ROLE IN THIS IS TO REVIEW THAT AND LAY OUT THE TESTS THAT THE CODE OF VIRGINIA HAVE HAVE PUT FORWARD AND TO WHERE THE STATE HAS SAID THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO GRANT A VARIANCE.

STAFF'S ROLE IN THIS IS TO ANALYZE THOSE TESTS AND HOLD ON THOSE INSTANCES, SAY, WHERE THE STATE SAYS THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL HAS WHAT THERE ARE.

THERE ARE TESTS THAT ARE IN PLACE AS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS RIGHT.

I ALL I'M SAYING IS LIKE, WHAT? I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN APPROPRIATE SPOT TO GET INTO BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

IT'S NOT. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY MOVE ON FROM THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN AND AGAIN, IS WHY WE FORWARDED THAT TO CHALLENGE ME TAKING AN OATH.

IF I TAKE AN OATH TO FOLLOW, I NEED TO DO THAT.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE CASE WHERE I'VE CHALLENGED MR. GREEN AND I AND WHERE.

AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THERE'S A LOT TO BE GAINED FROM THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE ON WITH THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. RICK, AND WE CAN MOVE ON WITH IT.

BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND PROCESS. I'M SORRY. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND PROCESS.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. AND I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO TELL ME I TOOK AN OATH AND I'M VIOLATING MY OATH.

AND I WANT TO KNOW WHERE I'M VIOLATING MY OATH. SO IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN, SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY I'M VIOLATING MY OATH, THEN I WILL, I WILL, I WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

THIS IS NOT IN MY DISTRICT. IT'S IN IT'S IN SOMEONE ELSE'S DISTRICT.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO STATE HOW I FEEL ABOUT THESE THINGS.

WE'VE APPROVED. WE WE'VE WE SEEM TO ALWAYS APPROVE THESE THINGS.

[00:50:03]

AND, AND, AND, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONE, ONE TEST THAT I ALWAYS USE WHO COMES BACK AND COMPLAINS.

PEOPLE ALWAYS COMPLAIN BEFOREHAND OR WE'VE GOTTEN PERMISSION AND APPROVAL OR SEEING THAT THE, THE, THE HOAS AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH IT, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY COME BACK.

OH, IT IS UNGODLY. I DON'T LIKE IT. AND AND AND I DON'T WANT IT DIDN'T WORK.

YOU'RE NOT BRINGING THAT INFORMATION BACK TO ME OR IT HAS.

IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. AND SEE, THAT'S WHERE THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTED THAT THINGS LIKE LACK OF OPPOSITION, LACK OF OPPOSITION OR INCREASE IN TAX BASE ARE GOOD, BUT YOU FIRST HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS UNDER STATE LAW, AND THAT'S WHERE STAFF COMES IN AND GOES THROUGH THOSE.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. OKAY. I'M DONE. I THINK YOU'VE GOT YOU HAVE MADE SOME GOOD POINTS, MR. GREEN. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE APPROVED SOME OF THESE CASES.

WE'VE ALSO NOT APPROVED SOME OF THESE CASES. SOMETIMES WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SOMETIMES WE DON'T. I'VE TAKEN A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT THIS CASE, READ THE STAFF REPORT, SURVEY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHETHER IT'S POPULAR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT POPULAR.

AND THAT IS SPECULATION ABOUT WHETHER SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME BACK AND COMPLAIN OR NOT. OUR JOB IS NOT TO.

TAKE A VOTE. OUR JOB IS. AND WE CERTAINLY TAKE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION INTO ACCOUNT, AND WE SHOULD.

BUT OUR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR REQUESTS MEET THE TEST FOR VARIANCE. WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH STAFF.

AND I'VE DISAGREED WITH STAFF ON CERTAIN CASES, BUT IN THIS CASE I DO THINK IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ABOUT 12 YEARS OLD. THE BUILDER, OBVIOUSLY THE HOUSES HAVE DECKS.

THEY HAVE SMALL BACKYARDS, RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

AND THERE'S A STANDARD THAT WAS SET. THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE BACKS UP TO A SIDE YARD.

SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS HOUSE AND THE ONE BEHIND IT.

AND I THINK I DO UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SUPERVISOR THAT REPRESENTS THAT DISTRICT ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK PORCHES CAN IMPROVE, A NEIGHBORHOOD, CAN IMPROVE A PROPERTY.

BUT OUR JOB IS NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR, OR PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS.

WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE STATE CODE, LOOK AT EACH CASE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE.

AND IN MY OPINION, AFTER REVIEWING THE CASE, I FEEL IT DOES NOT.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AND OR WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION FURTHER COMMENT.

YOU WANT SOME FURTHER COMMENTS? YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE SEND OUR REQUEST TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND I BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, AND THEY HAVE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED IT OR OTHERWISE RESPONDED.

AND I, I WISH IF THEY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT, THEY'D GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE.

THEY COULD SAY, WELL, YEAH, THANKS, BUT WE LIKE IT JUST THE WAY IT IS.

OR THEY COULD, THEY COULD CONSIDER CHANGING THE ORDINANCE, BUT THEY'VE NOT DONE ANYTHING.

AND SO PRESUMABLY THEY ARE LEAVING IT UP TO US.

AND PERTAINING TO THE DISCUSSION WE'VE JUST HAD.

APPARENTLY WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT VARIANCES.

OTHERWISE THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO BE HERE.

THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. AND WE ALSO HAVE HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND I THINK THE OBLIGATION TO NOT TRY TO LEGISLATE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ON THAT PATH.

AND IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, I'VE AGREED WITH WITH AND I'VE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR CASES IN BROOKLYN, BUT I DON'T SEE HERE WHERE THERE'S A HARDSHIP.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S THAT'S MY OPINION. I'M SORRY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

AND YOU KNOW, THE OTHER MEMBERS CAN VOTE AS THEY WISH TO ACCORDINGLY.

I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT. WE DENY THE VARIANCE SETBACK AS REASONABLE AS APPLIED TO THIS LOT.

THE SETBACKS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

THERE ARE NO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD JUSTIFY VARIANCE.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO SECOND THAT MOTION? OKAY.

THERE'S NO SECOND. DOES ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A COUNTER MOTION? CAN I HAVE YOUR PAPER TO APPROVE? WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD, WHICH IS TO DO AN ANALYSIS. AND THEY ARE, IF YOU WILL, STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE ABILITY TO TO MAKE CHANGES. AND SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO, TO APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO IN BRINGING IT TO US.

AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION FROM THERE. BUT, BUT THE STAFF IS ALWAYS VERY COMPETENT AND VERY THOROUGH AND PRESENTING THINGS TO US.

[00:55:08]

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT. I ALSO AGREE, BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT WHAT YOU SAID, MR. BROADWATER, THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TO GRANT VARIANCES.

AND THIS IS ONE WHERE WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH STAFF OR WE LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY.

AND AS SUCH, I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

THE REAR SETBACK IS UNREASONABLE AS APPLIED TO THIS LOT.

THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD IMPROVE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE OTHER TESTS ARE MET AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE OTHER TESTS ARE MET. IT IS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE OTHER TESTS ARE MET AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I'LL REPEAT THAT. SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

I GUESS WE HAVE A MOTION. MR. GREEN, IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND MR. MASSEY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NO. NO. THE MOTION CARRIES.

THREE AYES AND ONE. NO CASE IS APPROVED, MR. CHAIRMAN.

WITH THAT, COULD WE ASK FOR A MEETING WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OR SOMEONE SO WE CAN GET BETTER CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WHEN I SERVED AS CHAIR, I REMEMBER US SENDING THIS FORWARD. THIS IS CONSTANTLY COMING UP, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A TIT FOR TAT WITH EACH OTHER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY RESPECT WHAT GOES ON AND FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEMBERS DISTRICT. BUT THEN IN SOME INSTANCES, YOU KNOW, IT'S PUTTING US AT ODDS.

AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BE AT ODDS WITH WHAT MY WITH MY CHAIRMAN.

AND, MR. CHAIR, MR. GREEN, I CERTAINLY WILL TAKE THAT BACK TO MR. EMERSON AS WELL. AND, YOU KNOW, STANDING IN FOR MR. BLANKENSHIP THIS MORNING. BUT THAT CERTAINLY WILL BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY.

MOVING ON. WE HAVE ONE APPEAL ON THE AGENDA THIS MORNING, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS A PP2026100535. THIS IS CORTLAND FOR SSR INCORPORATION.

[6a. APP-2026-100534 Cortland Putbrese for SSR, Inc.: appeal of an administrative decision regarding the property at 1500 Eastridge Road, Tuckahoe. Parcel 754-744-4231. Zoning: B-2, Business District. Code Section: 24-2320. Tuckahoe ]

THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 1500 EAST RIDGE ROAD.

WHEN ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STAND TO BE SWORN. GENTLEMEN, BEFORE BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL EARLIER. I'VE SPOKEN WITH MY CLIENT EARLIER. YOU OFFERED TO DEFER TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN THE FULL BOARD MEETING HERE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. TO APPEAL.

TO DEFER TO THE FULL BOARD. OKAY. I THINK IT'LL HELP FACILITATE SOME OF THIS. MR. CHAIR.

IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THE DEFERRAL REQUEST, IF I MAY, MR. GANNON. I WOULD SO MOVE THAT, MR. BROADWAY. EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIR. MR. GANNON, IF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ASKED TO SPEAK REAL QUICKLY.

YES. ABRAHAM GAGNAN FOR THE WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.

WE WOULD OPPOSE THE DEFERMENT REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

IT WASN'T. THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE ON MARCH 4TH WHEN.

WHICH WAS THE REQUIRED DATE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN CONTENTION.

IT'S STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE TODAY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE IN ONE MONTH.

I THINK THE THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT THE PROCESS OF THE APPEAL IS NOT INTENDED TO GRANT A LANDOWNER THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL TIME TO FIX IT. THE STATUTE, WHICH IS 15.22309, SUGGESTS THAT THE THE ROLE OF THE BZA IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DIRECTOR WAS CORRECT IN ITS DETERMINATION.

SO WE WOULD OPPOSE THE DEFERMENT TODAY. WELL, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, THE OFFER WAS MADE TO APPLICANTS WHO WISH TO DEFER, THEY COULD DO SO. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HONOR THAT OFFER.

AND I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE FIFTH BOARD MEMBER HERE IN THE EVENT THAT IF IT'S SPLIT, THEN WE WE IT WON'T BE SPLIT. AND WHETHER THE LOT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE READY TO HEAR RIGHT NOW.