COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Transcription

1 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Brief November 21, 2011 Regular Meeting Board Chambers James J. McCoart Administration Building APPROVED Item 1. Roll Call (2:00 p.m.): Present: Absent: Patrick Salce, Chairman John Brenkus Larry Borkowski Richard Smith Eileen Thrall, Vice Chairman Mark Tonnesen Item2. Appeal Case# APP , Hamp Inc. dba Holly Acres Mobile Home Park- To consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination dated September 12, 2011, that a specified number of units cannot be reconstructed and new structures are not permitted within the defined floodway at Holly Acres Mobile Home Park. GPIN located at Jefferson Davis Highway. Woodbridge Magisterial District Chairman Salce administered an oath to those individuals planning to speak before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff, represented by Curt Spear ofthe County Attorney's office, provided background and explained the zoning administrator's determination. Mr. Spear provided exhibit 1 through exhibit 16 to be added to the record. Mark Moorstein and Courtney Harden, representing the appellant, provided background, asked questions of a number of interested parties, presented the appellant's case and provided exhibit 1 through exhibit 23 to be added to the record. Some citizens spoke mostly with a translator to assist them. Break 4:30p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Additional citizens spoke mostly with a translator to assist them. Curt Spear summarized staff's position.

2 Board of Zoning Appeals Brief November 21, 2011 Page 2 of2 Mark Moorstein summarized appellant's position. Chairman Salce closed the public hearing. Motion to reverse the zoning administrator's determination of September 12, 2011 and also his amended determination issued October 5, 2011 and to allow Hamp, Inc. or the homeowners to repair, rebuild or replace their mobile homes to meet the current HUD manufacturing housing code thus retaining the prior homes' nonconforming status in Appeal Case #APP , Hamp, Inc. dba Holly Acres Mobile Home Park, passed (5-0; motion Salce, second Thrall) -see RES Item3. Approval of October 17, 2011 Brief and Resolutions Motion to approve the October 17, 2011 brief and resolutions as presented after confirmation that there is a "not" before shared in Mrs. Thrall's first sentence of the transcript passed (by acclamation; Motion Brenkus, Second Thrall; Abstain Borkowski & Smith; Absent from meeting Tonnensen)- see RES Item4. Ms. Brzyski noted there is one appeal case on the agenda for the December meeting and one appeal and one variance case on the January agenda. Mr. Borkowski noted that he prefers to receive information related to the cases in electronic format rather than hard copy unless an electronic version is not available. Item 5. Adjournment at 5:28p.m.

3 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Resolution BZA Appeal Case #APP Hamp Inc. dba Holly Acres Mobile Home Park Meeting ofnovember 21, 2011 Upon consideration of a motion made by Patrick Salce, seconded by Eileen Thrall, and for the reasons given in the attached transcript for Resolution , it is RESOLVED to reverse the zoning administrator' s determination of September 12, 2011 and also his amended determination issued October 5, 2011 and to allow Hamp, Inc. or the homeowners to repair, rebuild or replace their mobile homes to meet the current HUD manufacturing housing code thus retaining the prior homes' nonconforming status. Patrick Salce Chairman Ayes: Borkowski, Brenkus, Smith, Thrall, and Salce Nays: None Abstain: None Absent from vote: None Absent from meeting: Tonnensen

4 Resolution November 21, 2011 Page 2 of5 Transcript Discussion of Resolution Appeal Case# APP , Hamp Inc. dba Holly Acres Mobile Home Park To consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination dated September 12, 2011, that a specified number of units cannot be reconstructed and new structures are not permitted within the defined floodway at Holly Acres Mobile Home Park. GPIN located at Jefferson Davis Highway. Woodbridge Magisterial District I'll put my reasons for that on the record. Hamp, Inc. is appealing the zoning administrator's determinations of September 12, 2011 and October 5, The instant appeal was filed October 3, 2011 within the required 30 day appeal period. The staff report sets forth the circumstances that led to the zoning administrator's determinations and the reasoning behind those determinations. It appears the Prince William County Code Sections and part 501 namely Section conflict with the Virginia Code Section The key question in this case is whether the State Code namely Section gives the local jurisdiction authority to prevent any work from being done to repair, rebuild or replace the mobile homes. Paragraph five of Section does state that any work done to repair, rebuild or replace such building shall be in compliance with the provisions of the Unified Statewide Building Code and any work done to repair, rebuild or replace such building shall be in compliance with the provisions of the local flood plain regulations adopted as a condition of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Thus, only those provisions adopted as a condition of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program are controlling. There are, however, no provisions such as those in (namely, if any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its value, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of Part 501; provided, however, that if the reconstruction of such use or structure exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value of the use or structure on the date of destruction, the provision of Part 501 shall apply to such reconstruction) as applied to mobile homes that are a condition of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. That program has some conditions which are: A. mobile home was previously located on the site; B. the mobile home was relocated from the site because of flooding that threatened or affected such site; and C. such replacement is in the 180 day period.

5 Resolution November 21, 2011 Page 3 of5 Thus, there's no conditional provisions of the local flood plan regulations that were adopted as a condition of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Certainly the conditions of and 501 were not adopted as a condition of participation because these conditions for mobile homes are not in 35 U.S. C Furthermore, the last paragraph of states nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the landowner or homeowner from removing a valid, nonconforming, manufactured home from a mobile or manufactured home park and replacing that home with another comparable manufactured home that meets the current HUD manufacturing housing code. And the last section of that last paragraph says, the last sentence, any such replacement home shall retain the valid nonconforming status of the prior home. As to the number of mobile homes damaged and the percentage of damage, we heard conflicting testimony today. I don't know if we'll ever get to an answer in that situation of what the extent of that damage was and other members will comment on that. The issues lead me to believe that there is a conflict on the number but I don't know what that number would be. For these reasons I would support the motion. Mrs. Thrall. THRALL: Much of what you have said is in my thought process as well. However, what I would like to say is that I am not saying that the Prince William County Ordinances and are invalid. I am not saying that. I believe that Holly Acres Mobile Home Park is a legal nonconforming use and it is vested and or grandfathered as a nonconforming use. I have to take into account the State Code, which you have mentioned, but I'd like to mention again nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the landowner or homeowner from removing a valid, nonconforming, manufactured home from a mobile or manufactured home park and replacing that home with another comparable manufactured home that meets current HUD standards. And at the end of that as Mr. Salce, Chairman Salce, said, any replacement home shall retain the valid, nonconforming status of the prior home. I will support the motion. Okay. Mr. Brenkus.

6 Resolution November 21, 2011 Page 4 of5 BRENKUS: SMITH: BORKOWSKI: Let it be said we heard a lot of testimony today about a lot of people having to put up with, for lack of a better term, put up with the trials and tribulations of having their house either come apart or be pulled apart and with that we certainly hope that this general hearing will fall on enough ears that it won't happen again in that way. I certainly, personally feel that I would like to help just about everybody that spoke today but unfortunately I can't do that either. So, I will just let it go at that and say Happy Thanksgiving and I'm done. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to associate myself with the comments that both you and Mrs. Thrall made with respect to the differences and the interpretation of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Virginia State Code. I would only add to that that I do have some pretty significant concerns with respect to the valuation process, what took place, and how the County did in fact come up with a 50 percent valuation when, quite frankly, I think part of that has to consider the cost of repair and nothing in this demonstrated any information to indicate what those repairs would cost. So, I will also support the motion. Mr. Borkowski. I've been on this Board, I think this is my second term, and this is probably one of the most difficult cases that has come to this Board. And it comes down to, like anyone on this Board or any attorney sitting out there, on how to interpret the law. How to interpret the Virginia State Law, Federal Law, and County Code or County Law and I think this whole decision is on how to interpret the law which I think makes it very difficult. By our bylaws and what's going on in the case here is, of course, how I have to interpret the Virginia State Law above, over, the County Law which is very difficult. I am not blaming, and I think Prince William County and the Zoning Administrator did what he and the County had to do at the time back in September and October time frame of what was happening and the flood that we had. I can also see the other issues going on between the County Codes here and the State Laws so I think the Chairman and the Vice Chairman have brought up some very, very good points. So, on my interpretation of the law, I agree with the Chairman.

7 Resolution November 21, 2011 Page 5 of5 Thank you, Mr. Borkowski. And, again, I'm not saying that the County Ordinance one way or another is valid or invalid. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a conflict with State Code and it was resolved in favor of interpretation of the State Code. Call the vote.

8 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Resolution Meeting ofnovember 21, 2011 Thrall, it is Upon consideration of a motion made by John Brenkus and seconded by Eileen RESOLVED that the October 17, 2011, Brief and Resolutions as presented are approved after confirmation that there is a "not" before shared in Mrs. Thrall' s first sentence of the transcript. Patrick Salce Chairman Ayes: by acclamation Nays: None Abstain: Borkowski, Smith Absent from vote: None Absent from meeting: Tonnessen