COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Brief Regular Meeting Board Chambers James J. McCoart Administration Building APPROVED Item 1. Roll Call (2:00p.m.) Present: Patrick Salce, Chairman Eileen Thrall, Vice Chairman John Brenkus Richard Smith Larry Borkowski Absent: Mark Tonnesen Perry Taylor Item 2. Appeal Case #APP2013-00002, Christopher Fleming - To consider an appeal of Violation Notice and Correction Order# PCE2012-04605 issued on June 5, 2012, concerning a patio that exceeds the 80% maximum allowable lot coverage for this block land bay as specified in the Prince William County center special use permit conditions (PLN2000-00133) in violation of section 32-700.55 (special use permit violation) of the zoning ordinance. PMD Planned Mixed Use Zoning District. GPIN 8093-91-9671 ; located at 4835 Cavallo Way. Neabsco Magisterial District. Chairman Salce administered an oath to those individuals planning to speak before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff, represented by Robert Skoff of the County Attorney' s office, provided details of the case, related background and explained staffs position. Mr. Christopher Fleming, representing himself, provided details and explained his position. Sarah Summer, the HOA Manager, answered questions from the members and explained the HOA regulations and procedures.
Board of Zoning Appeals Brief Page 2 of2 Shannon Schlegel, appellant's neighbor, explained how her property is directly affected by appellant's patio and showed pictures of property and answered questions from the members. Brandi Perrow, a neighbor also talked about her drain water absorption issues and her HOA packet that she received. Tamela Witt, a neighbor, talked about how this will set precedence if not upheld and these patios can be dangerous if allowed. Mr. Fleming provided a rebuttal explaining how he in good faith had experts come out to make sure there would be no issues regarding storm water damage and talked about how difficult this has been and what an unfriendly environment this has caused in his neighborhood. Mr. Fleming answered members numerous questions. Mr. Skoff presented closing statements reiterating the violation was correct and should be upheld. Members asked a number of questions. Motion to uphold the zoning administrator's determination and the issuance of a Violation and Correction Order and deny the appeal in Appeal Case #APP2013-00002, Christopher Fleming passed (3-2; Motion Thrall, Second Brenkus) - see RES 2012-009. Item 3. Item 4. Chairman Salce informed Mr. Fleming he has thirty days to appeal the Boards decision. Approval of July 16, 2012 Brief and Resolutions. Motion to approve the July 16, 2012 brief and resolutions as presented passed (4-0; motion Thrall, second Borkowski; Salce abstain) see RES 2012-010. Item 5. Item 6. Procedures Ms. Gordon advised there is one Variance case and one appeal case scheduled for the November meeting. Adjournment at 4:17p.m.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Resolution 2012-009 BZA Appeal Case #APP2013-00002 Christopher Fleming Meeting of Upon consideration of a motion made by Eileen Thrall, seconded by John Brenkus, and for the reasons given in the attached transcript for Resolution 2012-009, it ls RESOLVED to uphold the issuance of a Violation Notice and Correction Order and deny the appeal in Appeal Case #APP2013-0002, Christopher Fleming. Patrick Salce Chairman Ayes: Salce, Thrall, Smith Nays: Borkowski, Brenkus Abstain: None Absent from vote: Absent from meeting: None Tonnesen, Taylor
Resolution 2012-009 Page 2 of4 Transcript Discussion of Resolution 2012-009 Appeal Case #APP2013-00002, Christopher Fleming To consider an appeal of Violation Notice and Correction Order #PCE2012-04605 issued on June 5, 2012, concerning a patio that exceeds the 80% maximum allowable lot coverage for this block land bay as specified in the Prince William County Center special use permit conditions (PLN2000-00133) in violation of section 32-700.55 (special use permit violation) of the zoning ordinance. PMD- Planned Mixed Use Zoning District GPIN 8093-91-9671; located at 4835 Cavallo Way Neabsco Magisterial District THRALL: THRALL: BRENK US: THRALL: BRENKUS: I guess I'll make a motion. In reference to appeal case APP2013-00002, Christopher Fleming property is located at 4835 Cavallo Way Woodbridge; I'm going to motion to deny the appeal because the property exceeds the 80% maximum allowed coverage. This land bay and that land bay is subject to special use permit conditions and it is in violation that in Section 32-700.55 and in addition the patio was mostly already constructed before zoning approval was given. We need to have someone second the motion (inaudible) that's the motion. Yes ok yes thank you. I second the motion. (inaudible) Brenkus seconds the motion, now we want the reasons. Well basically because it does exceed the 80% requirements in that land bay and that is a part of the SUP conditions for that plan that which was set by the BOCS which we have no control and it's not our place and it is in violation that so uh it basically because it was constructed before zoning approval was sought and there has been from the testimony there has been no HOA approval of this and that's why I am denying this. Mr. Brenkus? I sat here and listened to the arguments. I'm struck by the fact that there are several townhouses that are concerned about the water issue. And its struck me that if all of the current homeowners have a water problem were to ah, ah, hold a meeting with or somehow have a hearing with the builder you may be able to get some relief thru that it's possible that you (inaudible) if you look at people in this room and I believe they were trapped into this situation or you were trying to fix
Resolution 2012-009 Page 3 of4 the situation and it seems to me that urn you all can get together and whether it's a straight split or whatever the cost will be let's say its 2k or because it was created by one of the homeowners and by the construction company uh maybe he could get it resolved that way. But uh it almost seems like to me that you are under attack but you would probably do well if you could get a whole truckload of good dirt and raise it up 2 or 3 inches and having a type going underneath the dirt-so uh that's my take on this situation. SMITH: BORKOWSKI: Thank you Mr. Chairman urn I have to say that I think that Mr. Skoff has based his position on zoning can make mistakes. I have been on the board for I don't know seven years this is one that certainly top two or three cases that I have heard with challenged emotion and just the overall concern on both sides but in the end ofthe day Mr. Skoff is absolutely right that the question here is whether or not the number one does the property exceed the 80% confirmed usage requirements and B is the Zoning Administrator lawfully able to go back and rescind the approval and the answer to both of those questions is yes so at the end of the day putting all the emotions aside and all best intentions Mr. Fleming I have no doubt whatsoever that that you did everything you thought you could do and that you made every attempt to make things right after. Our job is to interpret the Zoning Ordinance and rule on these cases based on strictly on the facts and how the law states and in this case I think it's extremely clear that the property or what took place in terms of the construction exceeds what the county allows and that the Zoning Administrator by right can.rescind the zoning approval. Mr. Borkowski? Thank you. Well I do not support the motion. A couple of reasons-one I did not see anything right in the homeowners thing under patios where you immediately have to get approval from HOA and usually with patios in HOAs you do not have to get permission from HOA for a patio and the other thing I understand how the law reads where the county has the right up to 60 days-my disagreement with that is if you start putting up a garage or anything else and you have your approval from the county you get it in a neighbor has a disagreement with the way it looks and the county corning back 59 days later and say you have to tear it down or because your neighbor doesn't like it or we found something not quite right with it and I think it's a bad part of the law right there and that's one reason I and I also don't believe somebody should wait 60 days once they get permit before they can start construction. Second wise-i think it the HOA responsibilities to get with these owners to take care of the drainage problem I don't I think the homeowners need to get with their HOA and it's the HOAs
Resolution 2012-009 September 17,2012 Page 4 of4 responsibility and I know these homeowners are paying a monthly or quarterly due to HOA to take care of issues like this and out oftheir pile of money I think its 100% responsibility. I hear the other people speaking here and there's only one person the young lady that's the neighbor that I had I took in that people do not live in that five home area were not here other than one. So I understand the other two were talking about that they did not live in that 5 home block-so again I am not upholding the county-thank you. Thank you. There's a lot of emotion back and forth in this appeal. I think Mr. Fleming was sincere in what he did and what he tried to do and I think he acted in good faith. I think the neighbors also are acting in good faith and it's a problem in their yard and its exasperated by the patio with the water as we heard from Shannon Schlagel in her yard which makes it worse. On 4/17/12 patios were laid and poured in and construction 24X17 concrete patios and was informed that the zoning permit and he applied for it and it was issued on 4/18. The approved zoning permit was for a patio covered the total 500 square feet and it appears the county made an error and we don't know the specific circumstances except that the alley way wasn't recognized and that area wasn't included in and it was also pointed out the SUP says there is an 80% 20% regulation and that went back and corrected approval by the Zoning Administrator. Even though I agree with Mr. Borkowski that I don't like the fact the Zoning Administrator can go back and change his position in this situation he has the right to do that per state law and what I like is irrelevant and that's what makes this job tough. It's totally irrelevant. He had he acted within his within the law in rescinding the zoning approval and by acting promptly he could have saved this material, money, so on and so forth spent but after everything happened going backwards here the point the patio was poured before so there's equal fault on both sides but the law rides with and the law stands with the Zoning Administrator state law. And for that reason in the VNCO once you determine first issue that Zoning Administrator can rescind his approval of this allowed zoning that he gave you-once you determine he can rescind that -then you look at your VNCO and was the it properly issued-well it was properly issued in this case because the regulation is 20-80 and in fact its 97% covered so it goes beyond maximum allowable coverage by the SUP. So the VNCO was correct-so for those reasons because he was allowed a mistake in his determination his Zoning Administrator and because the VNCO is correct I would have to support the motion as well to uphold the VNCO and deny the appeal. Please call the question.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Resolution 2012-010 Upon consideration of a motion made by Eileen Thrall and seconded by Larry Borkowski, it is approved. RESOLVED that the July 16,2012 Brief and Resolutions as presented are Patrick Salce Chairman Ayes: Borkowski, Brenkus, Smith, Thrall Nays: None Abstain: Salce Absent from vote: Absent from meeting: None Tonnesen. Taylor