[00:00:01]
APPEALS.[Board of Zoning Appeals on April 1, 2026.]
ORDER OUR MEETING FOR APRIL 1ST, 2026.JUST A REMINDER, UH, IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, AND YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE APPLICANTS YOU SHOULD HAVE SIGNED ON THE SHEETS THAT WERE OUTSIDE, UH, AND ANYONE MAKING, UH, COMMENTS, YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN FIRST.
UH, BEFORE YOU MAKE, UH, ANY COMMENTS, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, AND I'M GONNA ASK THAT, UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE, UH, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THAT WE JUST, UH, INTRODUCE OURSELVES SO YOU'LL KNOW WHO WE'RE, UH, SPEAKING TO.
LYNN GALE, GRACIE MILLMORE, A SEA BOLT, AND MR. JEFF HOLLAND IS ABSENT.
WE DO NOT HAVE, UH, ANY REMOTE PARTICIPATION THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DEALING WITH TODAY.
AND SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE NOW TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, AGENDA AS IT HAS BEEN PRINTED.
UH, IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT.
SO, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
UH, THE MINUTES FROM, UH, MARCH, UH, FOURTH.
UH, THEY'VE BEEN, UH, SENT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.
UH, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OR, UH, NO CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE, ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 4TH? MOVE TO ADOPT? GO AHEAD.
I WILL WE ADOPT THE MINUTES FROM THE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4TH MEETING.
ALL IN FAVOR? A AYE, THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GONNA, UH, GO TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, I JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M A CINDY JONES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR ZONING.
WE'RE GONNA START WITH AN OPENING STATEMENT FROM, UH, MR. PPEN.
SO, UH, AS, AS I HAD JUST MENTIONED IN A SIDEBAR, THE APPLICANTS AREN'T HERE.
IF WE WANTED TO GIVE 'EM A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, WE COULD ACTUALLY HEAR THE, THE NEXT CASE.
AND IF THEY ARRIVED DURING THAT PERIOD, THEN WE CAN HAVE THEM PARTICIPATE IN THEIR CASE.
BUT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ALL JUST ADOPTED YOUR AGENDA, BUT THAT'S ONE SUGGESTION THAT WE MIGHT, UH, THAT, THAT WE WOULD OFFER TO GIVE THE APPLICANTS A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO GET IN HERE IF, IF THEY INTEND TO BE HERE.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GONNA BE HERE, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE, UH, OF, OF THE MEETING.
DO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT WE, WE MOVE THEM FURTHER DOWN IN THE AGENDA AND, UH, WE'VE MOVED IN.
AND SO WE WILL AMEND THE AGENDA AND WE'LL GO TO, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S B AND WE'LL.
GIMME, GIMME A SECOND TO GET THERE.
SO, UH, THE FIRST CASE IS, UH, DAVID EVANS.
THIS IS, UH, VARIANCE 31, 20 26, AND THERE'S A FRONTAGE VARIANCE IN THE AG DISTRICT.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS CHRIS DALEY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS, UH, MR. EVANS.
LOCATION IS 2 1 2 2 0 ADAMS ROAD OR TAX MAP NUMBER 77 DASH A DASH 1 32, ELECTION DISTRICT SIX.
THE ACREAGE RIGHT NOW IS 198 ACRES.
UH, THE ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL FUTURE LAND USE IS AGRICULTURAL CURRENT.
AND PROPOSED USES ARE ALSO AGRICULTURAL ADJACENT ZONE AGRICULTURAL.
AND WE HAVE A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND VACANT FARMLAND.
SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY, UH, ZONED AGRICULTURAL FUTURE LAND USE IS ALSO AG, UH, NOT IN A FLOOD ZONE.
AND WHILE THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE RPA, UH, THE SITE DOES NOT.
SO NO RPA FOR WHERE THIS IS WHERE THIS, UH, PARTICULAR SITUATION'S GOING.
UH, JUST SOME PICTURES OF THE SITE.
BOTTOM LEFT IS ADAMS ROAD, LIKE YOU'RE GOING TOWARDS MONT.
UH, BOTTOM RIGHT IS ADAMS ROAD GOING TOWARDS GREEN BUSH.
AND THEN THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE HOUSE THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE.
AND THIS IS KIND OF AN IDEA OF WHAT THE, UH, ACCESS LOOKS LIKE.
AND THIS IS THE, UH, BASICALLY A SKETCH OF WHAT, UH, MR. EVANS WANTS TO DO.
BASICALLY CUT OUT A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL THAT HAS NO ROAD FRONTAGE.
UM, AND IT IS, UH, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET AWAY FROM ADAMS ROAD.
SO CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLICATIONS.
UH, NUMBER ONE, STRICT APPLICATION VERSUS, UH, STRICT APPLICATION SLASH UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION VERSUS ALLEVIATING HARDSHIP FROM A PHYSICAL CONDITION.
UH, THE ANSWER THERE IS NO, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT CHANGE.
FURTHER, THE OWNER COULD CREATE A PARCEL THAT COMPRISES WITH THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT A NEED FOR THE VARIANCE.
A GOOD FAITH ACQUISITION AND NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP ANSWER IS NO.
WHILE THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE
[00:05:01]
ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH, THE APPLICANT IS CHOOSING TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY UP IN A WAY THAT IT NEEDS THE VARIANCE.UH, NUMBER THREE, SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, NO ADVERSE IMPACT IS ANTICIPATED.
THE PROPERTY IS 198 ACRES WITH THIS PROPOSED PARCEL BEING IN THE CENTER AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, GENERAL RECURRING ENOUGH IN NATURE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE.
UH, KNOW THIS REQUEST IS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE.
UH, NUMBER FIVE, RESULT IN A USE NOT OTHERWISE PERMITTED OR REZONING OF PROPERTY.
THE ANSWER THERE IS, UH, NO, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED.
AND NUMBER SIX, IS THE REMEDY SOUGHT AVAILABLE THROUGH SPECIAL EXEMPTION? THE ANSWER THERE IS NO, UH, UTILITIES OVERHEAD.
UTILITIES ARE LOCATED ALONG ADAMS ROAD WELL, AND SEPTIC ARE ALSO AT THE SITE.
UH, TRANSPORTATION OF STREETS.
ADAMS ROAD IS A STATE MAINTAINED SECONDARY ROADWAY.
IT'S AN AVERAGE CONDITION, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL, LIKE I SAID BEFORE.
WHILE THE PROPERTY HAS RPA ON IT, THE PROPOSED SITE DOES NOT, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT SLASH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UH, NOTICES PER PROVIDED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
UH, SO WE GO TO STAFF FINDINGS.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SPLIT OUT A PARCEL FROM A LARGE EXISTING FARM.
THE PARCEL WILL NOT MEET THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND REQUIRES A VARIANCE.
AND, UH, CREATING A PARCEL THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
UH, SO FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, STAFF DOES NOT USUALLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VARIANCE CASES.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE THRESHOLD OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE.
SHOULD THE BZA APPROVE THE VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
UH, NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE AS SUBMITTED.
UH, NUMBER TWO, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT HEALTH DEPARTMENT, VDOT AND COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR THE SPLIT PARCEL.
NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH A DRAFT OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE USED TO SPLIT THE PARCEL FROM THE PARENT PARCEL.
AND NUMBER FOUR, A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS SHALL RENDER THE VARIANCE NU VOID.
I CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
ALSO, UH, MR. DALEY AND MR. EVANS ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CINDY ON THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
I DON'T SEE, UH, A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS SETBACKS IN THE PACKET.
IT, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT FOR THIS SINCE WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH, WE'RE DEALING WITH FRONTAGE AND THE PARCEL HAS NONE.
SO IT, IT, IT, I GUESS, I GUESS WHAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT IS GOING TO BE, THIS PROBABLY DEMONSTRATES IT THE BEST, UH, WHERE IT'S 900 FEET AWAY FROM ADAMS ROAD, BUT IT HAS NO ROAD FRONTAGE.
UM, WELL, THERE'S A, I GUESS A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THIS GENTLEMAN COULD HAVE APPROACHED THIS PROBLEM, BUT HE APPROACHED IT THIS WAY.
UM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE ABOUT, IS IT A, IS HE GIVING DEEDED ACCESS OR IS THERE A DEEDED STRIP OF LAND? IF YOU'RE NOT, UH, THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTAND IT, AND THAT WOULD BE HANDLED BY WHATEVER DOCUMENT THEY'RE GOING TO RECORD.
THEY WOULD NEED SOME SORT OF AN EASEMENT IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW FROM OTHER EXPERIENCE, YOU, THIS, HE'S CREATING A LANDLOCK PARCEL.
THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FOR.
THE VARIANCE IS FOR BASICALLY A LANDLOCKED PARCEL.
SO FOR, FOR YOUR QUESTION, YES.
AN AN EASEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE.
IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO, TO SHARE WITH US, IF YOU COME FORTH, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME NAME'S CHRIS DALEY.
UH, WOULD YOU, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, ALL, ALL MATTERS THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY? YES, SIR.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE WITH ME? UH, IN REGARDS TO, UH, YOUR QUESTION? UM, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT BACK IN 1790 PRIOR, UH, WELL PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO CREATE A PARCEL THAT MET THE CURRENT, UH, SPEED OF THE ORDINANCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ROUGHLY 6.5 ACRES TO REACH OUT TO THE ROAD.
AND GIVEN THAT THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT'S MAIN GOAL IS TO CONSERVE FARMLAND, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION TO CONSERVE FIVE MORE ACRES TO KEEP MR. EVANS, UH, H OR FARM, UH, AS LARGE AS IT POSSIBLY COULD.
UH, WE'VE DONE THIS, OR THE COUNTY HAS GRANTED THESE TYPE OF VARIANCE THAT BEFORE IN THE PAST WHERE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE, UH, WELL OFF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO CARVE OUT A PARCEL THAT THE, UH, LANDOWNER WANTED TO, UH, SELL OFF IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, BUT JUST GET RID OF A HOUSE THAT IS NO LONGER NEEDED.
[00:10:01]
AND IN REGARDS TO YOUR EASEMENT QUESTION, YES, WE WERE PROPOSING A 20 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT TO GO FROM ADAMS ROAD ALL THE WAY TO THE HOUSE TO ALLOW, UH, DEEDED AND PERMANENT ACCESS TO THE LOT THAT WOULD BE CREATED.ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH US ABOUT? NO, SIR.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTION? YEAH.
HOW LONG HAS MR. EVANS OWNED? UH, HE TOLD ME HIS FAMILY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BACK IN 1960 MM-HMM
UH, SO HE'S OWNED IT, UH, WELL BEFORE THE COUNTY ESTABLISHED ANY KIND OF ZONING ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING, UH, LIKE THAT.
AND IN REGARD TO YOUR COMMENT, UH, UH, I LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT HAS TWO EASEMENTS TO GET TO IT, BECAUSE I'M, I'M OFF THE ROAD.
ARE YOU WELCOME? I, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD.
ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? I MOVE THAT THE MACK COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVE VARIANCE 0 0 0 0 3 1 DASH 2026, A VARIANCE OF 150 FEET FROM THE 150 FOOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH BY MACK COUNTY CODE SECTION 1 0 6 DASH FIVE SEVEN WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? UH, MOTION I SECOND BEEN PROPERLY MOVED.
ARE WE READY TO WANNA GO BACK TO THE FIRST ONE? OKAY.
SO, UH, I, I'LL GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.
UM, THIS IS, UH, N CAMM PROPERTIES SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT DETERMINATION.
WE'RE GONNA START WITH A, UH, STATEMENT FROM, UH, MR. PAM.
PAM, A DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
I'M ALSO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATED ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
I'M GONNA KICK OFF THIS, UH, CASE WITH AN OPENING STATEMENT.
THAT OPENING STATEMENT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET OR WITH PAST THREE MONTHS.
UH, AND AS WE HAVE DEFERRED THIS TWICE WITH CONSIDERABLE EFFORT AND INPUT FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION STAFF, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND THE COUNTY ASSESSOR, I DETERMINED THAT RENOVATIONS TO THE HOME COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT WERE OVER 50% OF ITS MARKET VALUE, THUS REQUIRING THE HOME TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
FURTHER, THE APPLICANT APPEALED THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE IN CONVERTING THE GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE IS SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.
THE APPLICANT APPEALED THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION MADE PURSUANT TO AKIMA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1 0 6 DASH 360 9.
THE APPEALS PROCESS IS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 1 0 6 DASH 2 54.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS.
THE COUNTY'S CODE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION WORKED WITH VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES OF NKM PROPERTIES, LLC, TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE VIOLATIONS.
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON JULY 3RD, 2025 UNDER THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THE TIME WITHIN AN APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION COULD BE FILED EXPIRED.
THE COUNTY PROVIDED THE APPLICANT WITH PRECISE INSTRUCTIONS ON OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO COVER ALL WORK DONE ON THE STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS NEVER RECEIVED.
IN ADDITION TO MY PRIMARY FUNCTION AS THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I AM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND SUBDIVISION AGENTS, SO DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN MY CAPACITY AS DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, I OVERSEE FOUR DIVISIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF WHICH IS THE CODE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION.
CODE ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING THE UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE AND CHAPTER 1 0 6 OF THE AKIMA COUNTY CODE ENTITLED ZONING, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE USBC IS SPECIFICALLY ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY A BUILDING OFFICIAL MR. JACOB YEAGER SERVES IN THAT CAPACITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, MR. YEAGER COULD NOT BE WITH US TODAY AS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND THAT ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDES ARTICLE 15 ENTITLED FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT, KNOWN INFORMALLY AS THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE.
I HAVE DESIGNATED MR. TOM BROCKEN, BRO AS THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR, AND HE SERVES AS THE POINT OF CONTACT FOR ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE FLOODPLAIN
[00:15:01]
ORDINANCE.HE IS ALSO A CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN, UH, MANAGER.
IN CLOSING, I REQUEST THAT YOU UPHOLD MY DETERMINATION.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL CODES AS IT PERTAINS TO THE FLOODPLAIN, IS NOT SIMPLY ENVIRONMENTAL IN NATURE.
IT IS A MATTER OF LIFE SAFETY FOR THE OCCUPANTS OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AS MUCH AS IT IS FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMUNITY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, UH, AGENCY AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION PERIODICALLY AUDIT OUR PERFORMANCE SHOULD WE BE FOUND LACKING OUR STATUS AS A CLASS FIVE COMMUNITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM, OR THE CRS MAY BE JEOPARDIZED.
THIS MAY RESULT IN A LOSS OF A 25% INSURANCE PREMIUM DISCOUNT FOR MOST FLOOD INSURANCE POLICIES IN UNINCORPORATED.
IN UNINCORPORATED AKIMA COUNTY, UH, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR TOM BROCKEN BREW WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SUBJECT MATTER BACKGROUND PERTAINING TO THE DETERMINATION, UH, AS I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, UM, INTERIM BUILDING OFFICIAL ASSISTED IN THIS CASE, BUT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR, UH, TESTIMONY OR COMMENT THIS MORNING.
OKAY, SO NEXT UP IS, UH, MR. BROCKEN, BRO, OUR, UH, FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.
I'M THE COUNTY'S FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR AND A CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.
AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE KIND OF HAD THEIR HAND IN THIS TODAY.
IT'S BEEN, I THINK, FOUR, FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE IN OUR OFFICE THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.
SO WE HAVE ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FROM TODAY.
BUT BASICALLY, AND BRIEFLY AS I CAN, UM, EXTENSIVE WORK WAS DONE TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE GARAGE WAS CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE.
THERE ARE TWO ISSUES ARE THE CHANGES AND A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN A FLOOD ZONE THAT INVOKE THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE BUILDING CODE, AND DOES THE CONVERSION OF THE GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE NEED TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND AS FAR AS BACKGROUND, UM, THE APPLICANT IS NANA MORGAN ON BEHALF OF NKM PROPERTIES.
L-L-C-N-K-M PROPERTIES IS THE OWNER LOCATION IS TAX MAP 83 C DASH ONE DASH 23, AND ALSO 22.
THAT'S 2 4 0 7 0 TALL PINES DRIVE.
IT'S AN ELECTION DISTRICT SEVEN WITH, UH, SUPERVISOR JACKIE PHILLIPS.
IT'S JUST UNDER A HALF ACRE ZONING.
UM, BOTH AGRICULTURAL, THERE IS AN OVERLAY FOR THE KAPPA, UH, CHESAPEAKE BAY, CHESAPEAKE ATLANTIC PRESERVATION AREA.
FLOODPLAIN IS A SIX FOOT BASE FLOOD ELEVATION WITH A TWO FOOT FREE BOARD REQUIREMENT.
CURRENT USE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, NO CHANGE FOR PROPOSED USE.
ADJACENT ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL AND ADJACENT USE IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AGAIN, WE'RE HERE AT THE END OF, UH, TALL PINES DRIVE, UH, OFF FINNEY'S CREEK.
IT'S AN AE ZONE SIX BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, SIX FEET.
UM, THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES AT LEAST A ONE FOOT OF FREE BOARD.
OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE REQUIRES TWO FEET OF FREE BOARD.
UM, AND HERE'S KIND OF THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FROM THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO, UM, IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES.
AND I'M GONNA START WITH SECTION TWO FIRST, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S MORE APPLICABLE.
UM, IF THE IMPROVEMENTS, OR BASICALLY IF THE IMPROVEMENTS, OOPS, SORRY.
IF VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNT TO 50% OR MORE, YOU HAVE TO RETROFIT THE ENTIRE HOUSE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FLOOD ZONE.
UM, SO IF THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT ARE NOT COMPLIANT, IT'S GOTTA BE BROUGHT TO BEING COMPLIANT.
IT COULD BE ELEVATING THE HOUSE.
IT COULD BE JUST INSTALLING FLOOD VENTS.
IT COULD BE JUST RAISING YOUR HVAC.
UM, SO IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS.
UM, SO THAT IS IF THE ENTIRE HOUSE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
NOW, OTHERWISE, SECTION ONE APPLIES ANY MODIFICATION, ALTERATION, OR REPAIR, LESS THAN 50% NEEDS TO COMPLY.
SO CONVERTING THAT GARAGE FROM NON-LIVING SPACE WHERE ONLY CERTAIN USES ARE ALLOWED BEFORE THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION TO LIVING SPACE, IT NEEDS TO
[00:20:01]
COMPLY.UM, SO, AND JUST AS A KIND OF A, AS A REMINDER, UM, THE BCA IS NOT OPERATING IN A VACUUM.
WE ARE REQUIRED ANNUALLY TO SEND OUR PERMITS TO BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
IF WE ARE NOT PROPERLY IN IMPLEMENTING THEM, WE JEOPARDIZE THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM PROGRAM, AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ITSELF.
SO JUST KIND OF A TIMELINE, I'M GONNA RUSH THROUGH ON HOW WE GOT HERE.
UH, 2022, WE HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1984, AND THE STRUCTURE IS VALUED AT $135,900.
UH, WE BASICALLY, THE, THE WHOLE PROPERTY WAS 261, BUT WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE IMPROVEMENTS, UM, THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE 1 35 9, AND THAT REPRESENTS THE HOUSE, THE ATTACHED GARAGE DECKS, AND THE WELL AND SEPTIC.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, WE MAY DEDUCT OTHER THINGS FROM THE VALUE, SUCH AS IF THERE'S A VALUE OF A DOCK OR A PEER OR A BULKHEAD OR A POOL, WE SUBTRACT THAT OUT.
UM, SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST THE VALUE OF THE, THE STRUCTURE.
SO THE REASSESSMENT IN 2022 HAS IT VALUED AT 261 9.
UM, MARCH OF 2023, IT GETS SOLD FOR 226,000 OR TWO KM PROPERTIES.
UH, IT ACTUALLY SOLD FOR, YOU KNOW, ABOUT 34, 30 5,000 UNDER THE ASSESSMENT.
UM, AND I BELIEVE MR. WATSON WAS TOLD BY THE REALTOR AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, NO ONE HAD OCCUPIED THE STRUCTURE FOR 20 YEARS.
UM, SO AN EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE GOES BY AND DOES A SALES INSPECTION, UH, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, AND STAFF NOTED WORK WAS BEING DONE ON THE STRUCTURE.
NOW OUR SYSTEM, SO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AND THE THE BUILDING OFFICE, SOME THINGS DON'T COMMUNICATE WELL.
THEY JUST KNOW THAT WORK IS BEING DONE.
THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NO PERMIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UH, NORMALLY THERE'S A PERMIT FOR WORK BEING DONE AND WHEN THE WORK IS COMPLETED, THAT TRIGGERS THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE TO GO OUT THERE AND DO A REASSESSMENT BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN DONE TO THE PROPERTY.
BUT AT THIS POINT, UM, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE TO TRIGGER US TO LOOK AT IT.
AND NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE TO LOOK AT IT WITH RESPECT TO, UM, REASSESSING BASED ON NEW IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, 2024, THERE'S A NEW COUNTY REA COUNTYWIDE REASSESSMENT.
THE VALUE OF THE INSTRUCTURE, THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE INCREASES TO 183,000.
UM, NOTE, AGAIN, THIS IS THE STANDARD REASSESSMENT THAT WE ALL HAVE EVERY TWO YEARS.
UM, AND AGAIN, THE WORK BEING DONE TO THE HOUSE WAS NOT, DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON CHANGE.
UM, THE, UH, PROPERTY, AGAIN, WAS LISTED FOR SALE IN, UM, 2024.
SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE GONE BACK.
PROPERTY WAS LISTED FOR SALE WITH MULTI IMPROVEMENTS MENTIONED IN THE LISTING.
UH, I THINK THE LISTING AT THAT TIME, I THINK WAS, YEAH, 699,000 WAS WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY LISTED AT.
MENTIONED NEW CABINETS, COUNTERTOPS, SINK AND APPLIANCES, NEW BATHROOMS, OVERSIZED DECK, NEW ROOM, HVAC PAINT, WINDOWS, CABINETS.
FLOORING WENT FROM A TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH, OR POSSIBLY TWO AND A HALF BATH STRUCTURE TO A THREE BEDROOM, THREE BATH STRUCTURE.
UH, THAT CONVERTING THE GARAGE ADDED A BATH, FULL BATHROOM AND A FULL BEDROOM TO THE HOUSE MOVING INTO 2025 BETWEEN WHEN THE HOUSE WAS LISTED AT 6 99 TO BETWEEN THAT AND MARCH OF 2025, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT WE CAN TRACK ANYTHING GOING ON OTHER THAN THE, THE LISTING DROPPED DOWN TO EVENTUALLY, UM, ABOUT 535,000.
UM, SO IN MARCH OF 2025, A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, A POTENTIAL PURCHASER CONTACTS US ABOUT
[00:25:01]
ADDING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE PROPERTY.UM, REMEMBER WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND LIKE, WELL, IT'S ALREADY GOTTEN ATTACHED GARAGE.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE, IT TRIGGERS US TO GO LOOK AND SEE.
THIS GARAGE HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A BEDROOM AND THEIR OTHER WORKS.
WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT.
UM, THAT TRIGGERED STAFF TO GO OUT THERE AND NOTICED A VIOLATION STOP WORK ORDER, UM, WAS ISSUED.
AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED THAT A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WAS NEEDED FOR ALL WORK DONE.
UM, THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS BASED ON A DOOR BEING CONVERTED TO A WINDOW, WHICH IS WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL COULD PUBLICLY SEE FROM OFF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE DON'T KNOW FULLY EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE, BUT WE KNOW ENOUGH FROM LOOKING FROM OFF THE PROPERTY THAT AT LEAST THAT HAS BEEN DONE, AND THAT, UM, ALLOWS THE STOP WORK ORDER TO BE ISSUED.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING MS. MORGAN DENIED ANY WORK HAD BEEN DONE OTHER THAN PAINTING NEW FLOORING AND NEW APPLIANCES.
AND NKM PROPERTIES MAKES AN APPLICATION TO CHANGE A DOOR TO A WINDOW.
AND THEY SAY THAT IS ALL THAT HAS OCCURRED.
AGAIN, WE'VE GOT AN MLS LISTING THAT KIND OF STATES EVERYTHING THEY DID.
UM, WE GET THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, THERE'S SOME MISTAKES ON IT, BUT THE EXISTING FLOOR IS 6.41 FEET.
UM, THAT'S ABOVE THE FEMA MINIMUM, BUT IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VIRGINIA BUILDING CODE.
IT ALSO DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE.
OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE, THAT REQUIREMENT IS EIGHT FEET.
SO IT'S A LITTLE OVER A FOOT AND A HALF TOO LOW.
UM, THEY'RE ALSO NOT PROPER FLOOD VENTS.
THE PERMIT APPLICATION GOES REVIEW THROUGH REVIEW A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND IT DOESN'T PASS.
THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY IN THE PLANS.
WE HAVE TO ASSIGN A VALUE TO THE WORK BEING DONE BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRED TO EVALUATE IF A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN DONE.
UM, AND NOT ALL THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THE HOUSE HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO US.
AGAIN, THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR AND TO THIS DAY, DESPITE REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO ASK WHAT'S BEEN DONE, IS THE APPLICATION FOR CHANGING A DOOR TO A WINDOW.
UM, WE GET SOME COST ESTIMATES FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, AND AT SOME POINT, AMP M PROPERTIES ALLOWS THE POTENTIAL PURCHASER TO MOVE IN DESPITE THE STOP WORK ORDER AND SITE, DESPITE THERE BEING A FAILED SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE, THE PROPERTY.
UM, LATE MARCH, NKM ALLOWS INSPECTORS TO VISIT THE PROPERTY.
UM, MR. YEAGER FINDS WORK EVIDENCE OF WORK BEING DONE THAT WAS NOT DISCLOSED.
UM, ALSO THAT, UH, SOME WORK WAS NOT UP TO THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AT SOME POINT, THE POTENTIAL PURCHASERS VACATE THE PROPERTY.
THE MLS LISTING IS REMOVED IN ADDITION TO ISSUES WITH THE SEPTIC BEING REPAIRED.
SO OVER LAST SUMMER, THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND NK M PROPERTIES.
WE'VE INFORMED THEM SIX TIMES IN WRITING BETWEEN MID-MARCH AND MID-AUGUST THAT WE NEEDED AN APPLICATION FOR EVERYTHING.
UM, WE NOTICED THAT THEY DID MORE THAN THEY INDICATED THE HVAC IS TOO LOW.
THERE'S SOME OTHER VIOLATIONS.
UM, WE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES FOR MORE ACCOUNTING, ACCURATE ACCOUNTING OF COSTS TO INCLUDE ALL WORK DONE.
AND THERE WERE SOME COMMUNICATIONS BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE WORK.
UM, NKM CONTENDED THAT THE INCREASE IN THE ASSESSMENT BETWEEN 2022 AND 2024, WHICH WAS 48, ABOUT 48,000, I'M ROUNDING UP SLIGHTLY, WAS, UM, THE VALUE OF ALL THAT WORK.
REMEMBER, THAT'S JUST A GENERAL RE-ASSESSMENT.
THE COUNTY HAS NO INFORMATION FROM A PERMIT TO TRIGGER THE THEM TO GO BACK OUT AND LOOK.
UM, WE FINALLY ASKED, UM, THEY KEPT IN INDICATING THAT THE VALUE OF THE INCREASE IN THE ASSESSMENT WAS THE VALUE OF THE WORK.
UM, AND WE KIND OF KNEW THAT REALLY WASN'T THE CASE.
WE REQUESTED THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS TO COME UP WITH THE VALUE THAT IS ALLOWED
[00:30:01]
AN ALLOWED PROCEDURE UNDER THE FEMA GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.AND HE VALUES THE IMPROVEMENTS AT AN INCREASE OF $166,800 OVER THE 2022 ASSESSMENT.
THAT'S ALMOST A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER WHAT IS CONSIDERED A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
UM, IN OCTOBER, UM, MR. PBIT ISSUES HIS OPINION THAT THE PROJECT IS A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT AND NOTES THAT EVEN IF NOT A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, THE CONVERSION OF THE GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
UM, NKM DECIDES TO APPEAL THE DECISION TO THE BZA, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF UPDATING.
UM, BECAUSE WHEN WE ORIGINALLY CAME HERE IN FEBRUARY, REASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT COME OUT YET.
THE NEW REASSESSMENT FOR VALUES PUTS THAT PROPERTY, UM, FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS AT 383 100.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT INCLUDES THE CHANGES THAT WERE DONE BECAUSE WE HAD MR. HURTLE LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT IT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL PROPERTY WENT FROM, YOU KNOW, WENT UP TO 511,000 VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THE PURCHASE OF 226,000.
UM, ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRICE AT THE TIME THERE WAS A CONTRACT ON IT WAS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE PURCHASE PRICE TWO YEARS PRIOR.
UM, SO NOTICES WERE PROVIDED TO THE NEWSPAPER AND ADJACENT OWNERS PER STATE LAW.
UM, STAFF FINDINGS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU SEE THE SECOND, UM, THE SECOND SUBMISSION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE VALUE OF THE WORK BEING DONE, WHICH WAS SHOWING IT BEING UNDER 48,000.
AND THIS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE ORDINARILY, WHEN WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, WE'RE DOING THIS BEFORE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THINGS THAT IF IT RAISES QUESTIONS WITH US, WE CAN QUESTION IT.
WE CAN SAY, GIVE US YOUR MATERIALS LIST, GIVE US A BREAKDOWN.
GIVE US, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
UM, AND WE KEPT HEARING FROM NKM PROPERTIES THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO, TO BREAK IT DOWN.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SEVERAL RED FLAGS.
ITEMS WERE NOT DETAILED, YOU KNOW, ALL THE NUMBERS WERE ENDING IN NICE EVEN NUMBERS.
UM, $7,000 TO DO THREE BATHROOMS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT JUST DID NOT REALLY PASS THE TEST WITH US.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S AFTER THE FACT.
UM, HERE YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE WORK DONE BY NKM PROPERTIES.
THESE ARE ACTUAL PHOTOS FROM THE LISTING.
UH, REMINDER, THIS IS A HOUSE THAT SOLD FOR 226,002 YEARS PRIOR.
IT HAD NOT BEEN LIVED IN FOR 20 YEARS OR HAD NOT BEEN OCCUPIED FOR 20 YEARS.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO GIVE US COST WAS ALSO CONCERNING.
NORMALLY IF YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF FLIPPING HOUSES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR PAPERWORK ON WHAT YOU'VE SPENT SO THAT YOU KNOW, FOR PAYING TAXES, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ESTIMATE THAT.
AND YET WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING.
UM, THE OTHER ITEM IS WE HAVE TO LOOK NOT JUST AT THE COST.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE VALUE OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.
SO, UM, IT DID SEEM, UH, THAT IT DID, THAT IT WAS OVER THE THRESHOLD FOR BEING A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
AGAIN, UM, THE NKM PROPERTIES WAS INSISTENT THAT THE CHANGE IN THE VALUE BETWEEN 2022 AND 2024 WAS THE VALUE OF THE WORK BEING DONE.
THIS WAS JUST LOOKING AT, HERE'S THEIR PROPERTY HERE.
IT WENT UP THAT MUCH BETWEEN THE TWO REASSESSMENTS, AND YOU CAN LOOK OTHER PROPERTIES RIGHT AROUND THEM, HOW MUCH THEY WENT UP WITHOUT HAVING WORK BEING DONE EITHER.
SO IT KIND OF SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT THAT IT WAS INCREASED WAS NOT A RESULT OF THE WORK DONE ON THE HOUSE.
SO NOTHING TRIGGERED THE ASSESSORS TO LOOK AT IT UNTIL WE WENT OUT THERE.
PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSE WHEN IT WAS SOLD TO MKM.
THE PICTURE IN THE MIDDLE IS A COUPLE MONTHS LATER.
[00:35:01]
DOING WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT.YOU CAN SEE AT THIS POINT, THEY'VE ALREADY, AGAIN, THE ONLY THING THEY APPLIED FOR WAS CONVERTING A DOOR TO A WINDOW.
YOU CAN ALREADY SEE BETWEEN THE FIRST PICTURE AND THE SECOND PICTURE, THEY HAVE CHANGED THE GARAGE DOOR TO A SLIDING GLASS DOOR.
UM, MS. MORGAN HAD INDICATED THE WORK HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE TO ELEVATE THE GARAGE FLOOR WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY.
IF THIS IS TRUE, I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY WOULD'VE PUT IN A SLIDING GLASS DOOR INTO THAT AREA, BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO STEP UP TO GET INTO THAT ROOM FROM THAT SLIDING GLASS DOOR.
UM, FINALLY THE LAST ONE IS THE PICTURE FROM THE MLS LISTING WITH A CHANGE FROM A SLIDING GLASS DOOR TO A WINDOW.
AGAIN, THAT IS THE ONLY ITEM THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR ON THEIR PERMIT, DESPITE SIX FOOT WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR ALL WORK COMPLETED.
UM, THE PICTURES ON THE BOTTOM SHOW SOME PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE STAFF WHEN THEY WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT PART OF THE WORK DONE IN MAY.
AGAIN, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE ONLY THING THAT HAD BEEN DONE WAS SOME COSMETIC WORK AND SOME OTHERS, THE BUILDING MATERIALS GET DATED.
YOU CAN SEE THEY BUILT, THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN MARCH OF 2023.
YOU CAN SEE THIS PLUMBING PIPE THAT THEY'VE PUT IN IS DATED MAY OF 2023.
SO IT WAS OBVIOUSLY PUT THERE AFTER THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
AND IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THESE TWO.
BUT THESE ARE DATES THAT WERE AFTER THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
UM, WE REQUEST THE BOARD UPHOLD MR. PAM BID'S DECISION THAT THE SITUATION FALLS UNDER THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT SECTION OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT PROVISIONS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THERE ARE SOME SAMPLE MOTIONS, UM, ON THE, THIS AND THE FOLLOWING PAGES THAT WE CAN SWITCH BACK AND FORTH TO IF YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING.
WITH THAT, I'LL DEFER TO THE BOARD FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, AS WE ALREADY MENTIONED, WE HAVE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF STAFF HERE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE OF US.
AND WE ALSO HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR NKM PROPERTIES THAT CAN ADDRESS THE BOARD AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GOT, SORRY FOR THE THICKNESS OF THE PACKET TOO.
UM, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET, UH, MR. HURTLE UP TO AFFIRM HIS EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS.
ALRIGHT, FRIEND, HURTLE COUNTY ASSESSOR.
I'VE WORKED FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR 42 YEARS TOTAL.
UM, AND AS TOM INDICATED, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IS WHEN WE WERE DOING THE REAPPRAISAL, UH, WE WERE HAVING TO GO TO THAT PROPERTY AND WE SAW SOME CONSTRUCTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
AND SO WE LOOKED FOR A PERMIT, YOU KNOW, THAT INDICATED THAT WORK WAS TO TAKE PLACE AND, UM, IT WAS NOT.
AND SO THE NEXT THING WE LOOKED AT WAS THE MLS LISTING FOR THAT PROPERTY OVER TIME.
AND AS TOM INDICATED, AND, AND THAT IS, UM, THE MOST RECENT VALUATION WAS BASED ON THAT INFORMATION.
UM, PRIOR TO THAT, THERE WAS THE REASSESSMENT FOR 2024, BECAUSE WE DO BIANNUAL REASSESSMENTS.
AND AT THAT POINT WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, INCREASES IN VALUE OF PROPERTIES AS TO WHAT OUR ASSESSMENT WAS.
AND THAT, IN MANY CASES LED TO THE VALUE INCREASE IN SUCH AS, IN THIS CASE, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PER SE.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR A QUICK QUESTION, MR. HURTLE? UM, IT DOES SEEM UNUSUAL.
THERE CANNOT PROVIDE EXPENSES, AT LEAST FOR MATERIAL.
BUT IF SOMEONE COMES UP AND SAYS, OH, I DID ALL THE LABOR MYSELF, YOU HAVE TO ASSIGN A VALUE OF THE LABOR, DO YOU NOT? SURE WE WOULD, YEAH.
WE'RE LOOKING AT EFFECTIVE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS SUCH AS EFFECTIVE AGE, THE OF THE PROPERTY, AND HOW THAT CHANGES FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT.
NO, I MEANT IF SOMEONE SAID, WELL, I DID ALL THE WORK IN A BATHROOM MYSELF, I KNOW WHAT A PLUMBER WOULD CHARGE ME.
I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO GO BY WHAT IS A STANDARD
[00:40:02]
SITUATION FROM AN ASSESSMENT STANDPOINT THAT WE'RE USING.I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COUNTY BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? NOW, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, PLEASE? OF COURSE.
MAY I PLEASE THE BOARD? JOSEPH SHERMAN ON BEHALF OF NKM PROPERTIES.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH ON ALL MATTERS THAT SO HOPE GOD.
AS OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE BOARD MAY WANT TO CONSIDER CONTINUING THIS MATTER AT THE END BECAUSE THE, PURSUANT TO THE BYLAWS AND APPEAL CAN'T PROPERLY BE DISPOSED OF.
TODAY, THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, I POINTED OUT THAT MY CLIENT HAD APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE AND THE COUNTY ACCEPTED THE FEE FOR THAT.
IT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE AGENDA IN SOME PART BECAUSE I WASN'T ABLE TO ANSWER A COUNTY EMAIL WITHIN 72 HOURS.
I WAS, I WAS PREDISPOSED FOR OTHER MATTERS.
SO I TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE, HOWEVER, YOU MAY WANNA CONSIDER IT AT THE END BECAUSE OF THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
ONE IS TO LIFT THE WHOLE HOUSE AND THE OTHERS THEY'LL JUST LIFT THE GARAGE.
AND IT'S ON THAT SECOND ONE WHERE WE REALLY NEED A VARIANCE TO BE BEFORE THE BOARD TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THE MATTER AS IT RELATES TO THE WHOLE HOUSE.
I'M READY TO PROCEED TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID PUBLICLY ADVERTISE TODAY.
SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO, UM, ASK MR. HAMMETT A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU WOULD.
EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PERMIT THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXAMINE, CROSS-EXAMINE.
WELL, I'M GONNA OBJECT TO THE COUNTY.
WHAT WHAT WE WILL PREFER IS YOU GIVE US YOUR INFORMATION AND THEN IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK, WE WILL DIRECT.
BUT LET, LET US KNOW WHAT YOU, WHAT, WHAT YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE AND, UH, WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO HEAR.
WELL, I'LL LAY MY CASE OUT AND YES, THANK, AND, UM, AND I'LL ALSO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, AN OBJECTION TO MS. PROCTOR SERVING AS BOTH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN AN ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING AND THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY, EXCUSE ME, I AM NOT THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY.
SO IF MR. PAM OR MR. WATSON WERE ABLE TO TESTIFY TODAY, THE TESTIMONY WOULD PROVE THAT THE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A FEAR FACTOR THAT FEMA WILL SOMEHOW, AND IT WAS SPOKEN ABOUT TODAY, WITH WITHDRAW SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY AND COUNTY RESIDENTS.
IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT ENFORCE STATE ITS OWN ORDINANCES TO THE HILT, THE THE EVIDENCE WILL FURTHER SHOW THAT THESE FEMA ORDINANCES ARE NOT BASED IN STATE LAW.
THEY'RE IN FACT COPIED AND PASTED FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
THEY'RE ADOPTED AS COUNTY ORDINANCES IN ORDER TO ACCEPT FEMA MONEY.
AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT, UM, LEGAL ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO THE APPRAISAL.
ULTIMATELY, THE, THE QUESTION, THE FACTUAL QUESTION THAT YOU'VE GOTTA DECIDE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE WORK COMPLETED CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE HOUSE ITSELF.
AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT MR. HURDLE'S OFFICE AS ASSESSOR FOR THE COUNTY PUBLISHED ASSESSMENTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE IMPROVEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE COUNTY ASSESSMENTS ARE FAIR MARKET VALUABLE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE 10, SECTION TWO REQUIRES ALL ASSESSMENTS OF REAL ESTATE SHALL BE AT THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THE VIRGINIA CODE REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSOR ANNUALLY CONFIRM BY HIS SIGNATURE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE FAIR MARKET VALUE.
FAIR MARKET VALUE IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES.
THE ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND LEGALLY IS FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THE STRUCTURE WAS WORTH 135,900 BEFORE AND 183,800 AFTER SWORN TO BY THE COUNTY ASSESSOR REQUIRED TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION.
I'LL READ INTO THE RECORD THAT THE CASES
[00:45:02]
ARLINGTON COUNTY TWO 40, VA 1 0 8 IS A 1990 CASE REQUIRING THAT THE ASSESSMENT BE FAIR MARKET VALUE.COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION, 2 61 VA SIX 17 REAL PROPERTY IS TO BE APPRAISED AT A FAIR MARKET VALUE, INCLUDING WHEN DETERMINING REAL ESTATE TAX FRUIT GROWERS VERSUS ALEXANDRIA 1976 CASE ARTICLE 10, SECTION TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA REQUIRES ALL ASSESSMENTS OF REAL ESTATE, BE IT THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUE.
SO THE COUNTY'S OWN EVIDENCE AND THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS ARE WHAT FAIR MARKET VALUE IS BEFORE AND AFTER LEGALLY.
THE THIRD SPREADSHEET INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET IS AN ESTIMATE WHICH CONTRASTS WITH A VALUATION.
THESE TWO ARE APPRAISALS DONE IN FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THIS THIRD ONE IS AN ESTIMATE WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS THE HOUSE WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM THE BASIS FOR THESE ASSUMPTIONS.
THIS IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT SWORN TO BY THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.
SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE CAN'T BE CONSIDERED IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.
THAT'S BLUE RIDGE SERVICE CORPORATION 2006, CASE 2 71 VA 2 0 6, AND THE TITSWORTH V ROBINSON DECISION OF 1996.
EXPERT TESTIMONY CANNOT BE SPECULATIVE OR FOUND UPON ASSUMPTIONS THAT HAVE AN INSUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS.
SO LEGALLY SPEAKING, THE ONLY EVIDENCE THIS BOARD CAN CONSIDER ARE THE FIRST TWO FAIR MARKET VALUE SWORN TO BY THE ASSESSOR, WHICH SHOWS LESS THAN 50% IMPROVEMENT.
THE THIRD ONE CAN'T BE CONSIDERED, IS NOT PROPER EVIDENCE AND WAS DONE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROCEEDING WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE HOUSE.
IN ORDER TO TOW THE LINE FOR FEMA.
FEMA WANTS TO HEAR THAT THE COUNTY'S ENFORCING ITS ORDINANCES, WHICH AREN'T BASED IN STATE LAW.
THE, THE REPLETE WITH REFERENCES TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER THROUGHOUT.
AND SO THEY'VE DONE THAT TODAY.
THE COUNTY'S DEFENDED THIS CASE TO THE HILT IN ORDER TO REPORT BACK TO FEMA THAT THEY'VE DONE THEIR JOB TO TRY TO ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE.
AND IT'S THIS BOARDS JOB TO CONSIDER ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE ASSESSMENTS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE BEFORE AND AFTER WOULD SHOW THE VALUE GOING UP LESS THAN 50%, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE COUNTY AND THIS BOARD.
AND SO I'D ASK YOU TO REVERSE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION AND I'LL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH FOR THE VARIANCE.
UH, THE PERSONS THAT YOU REPRESENT, YES.
WHEN THEY WERE ASKED FROM THE COUNTY PERMISSION TO COME IN SO THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY SEE RIGHT, WERE THEY DENIED OR, OR WERE THE DOORS OPEN SO THEY COULD COME IN? THEY WERE, THEY WERE ALLOWED IN.
AND THE, THE, AND THEN TO THE POINT OF THE BUILDING CODE APPLICATION, WE'VE REPEATEDLY ASKED TO SUBMIT ONE.
HOWEVER, WE'RE AT THIS IMPASSE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU GOTTA LIFT THE HOUSE.
IF YOU'RE GONNA LIFT THE HOUSE, YOU BETTER PUT THAT IN YOUR BUILDING CODE, UH, PERMIT APPLICATION ALSO.
SO UNTIL WE RESOLVE THE, THE PLANNING ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE HOUSE IS BEING LIFTED, WHETHER OR NOT THE GARAGE IS BEING LIFTED, IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FOR US TO SUBMIT A, AN APPLICATION.
WE, WE WANT JACOB JAGER IN THERE.
WE WANT THIS HOUSE TO PASS INSPECTION SO THAT IT CAN BE DEPLOYED ONTO THE MARKET AND, AND, AND RELOCATE A FAMILY FROM NEW YORK AND JERSEY TO, TO THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY, WHICH WE ALL LIKE AND ENJOY.
I THINK THAT EVERYBODY BENEFITS FROM DEPLOYING THIS ASSET.
THE BUYER WILL HAVE TO BUY FLOOD INSURANCE.
AND ONCE THE INSPECTOR'S ABLE TO GET IN THERE AFTER DECIDING WHAT NEEDS TO BE INSPECTED, INCLUDING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE ELEVATING THE HOUSE, THEN THAT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED.
I MET WITH THE COUNTY, UM, EXTENSIVELY WITH MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THEM, AND WE GOT ABOUT AS FAR AS WE COULD.
AND ULTIMATELY WE, WE CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DEFEND THIS TO THE HILL TO TELL FEMA WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN.
WE WANT YOUR MONEY, WE WANT YOUR DISCOUNT TO COUNTY RESIDENTS.
THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN ORDER TO PLACATE THEIR BOSS IN WASHINGTON.
HOWEVER, I'M COMING TO YOU AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CITIZEN WHO'S RELYING ON THE COUNTY'S OWN ADMISSIONS AGAINST THEIR INTEREST.
[00:50:01]
WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION AND LAW TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE, TO ALLOW THIS TO RESOLVE ITSELF IN A WAY THAT SERVES THE GREATER INTEREST.THE HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE FOR WITHOUT GETTING FLOODED OUT.
NOW THAT WE DON'T NEED TO LIFT THE HOUSE BY VIRTUE OF THIS BOARD FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE, THEN WE DO WANT JACOB YEAGER IN THERE.
WE DO WANT TO PASS INSPECTION, WHICH WE WILL.
WE, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE USED REPUTABLE PEOPLE.
WE'VE HAD AFTER THE FACT INSPECTIONS, WE'RE CONFIDENT AND EXCITED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS INSPECTION.
WE CAN'T DO IT THOUGH UNTIL WE KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE TO LIFT THE HOUSE, WHICH IS AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE.
IT REQUIRES ENGINEERING AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY CREATE MORE PAGES TO OUR APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT.
DO YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, YES.
UM, YOU PUT A LOT OF, UH, AND I'M A PROPERTY MANAGER, SO I KNOW FEMA LAWS.
UM, YOU PUT A LOT OF, UH, PUSH ON THE COUNTY TO FOLLOW ALL THESE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATE LAWS.
YOU'VE KIND OF NEGLECTED ABOUT YOUR CLIENTS NOT FOLLOWING ANY OF OUR LAWS OR FILING FOR PERMITS, RIGHT.
AND GIVING WHAT LOOKS TO BE FAIRLY GARBAGE COSTS FOR REDOING SOME.
AND SO WHAT I TOLD THE COUNTY AND WHAT I'LL TELL THIS BOARD IS THAT I'M THE, I'M THE ARM OUTTA THE BULLPEN, RIGHT? THIS GAME STARTED WITHOUT ME.
I'M, I'M COMING IN WITH THE SCORE BEING WHAT IT IS.
I'VE APOLOGIZED TO THE COUNTY.
I'LL APOLOGIZE TO YOU ON BEHALF OF MY, ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS.
AND I'VE TOLD THE COUNTY THAT I WOULD PREFER TO GET THEM A FACE-TO-FACE APOLOGY FOR MY CLIENT BECAUSE WE ARE GONNA SEE EACH OTHER AT THE GROCERY STORE.
WE ARE GONNA SEE EACH OTHER AT, AT, AT THE, UH, ROYAL FARMS. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT ANY EQUITY IN BEING A SCOFF LAW.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO POSITIVE DOPAMINE FROM ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION.
HOWEVER, NOW THAT WE'RE HERE, WE'VE STILL GOTTA PLAY BALL.
WE STILL GOTTA CALL BALLS AND STRIKES AND THEY'RE RIGHT FOR THE WRONG REASON.
THEY NEED A BUILDING, UH, PERMIT APPLICATION, AND THEY NEED AN INSPECTION.
THEY DON'T NEED TO MAKE THESE FOLKS LIFT THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SUPPORT IT.
AND IT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMISSIBLE AT THIS TRIBUNAL.
SO WE'RE MEANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND AN APOLOGY FROM YOUR CLIENTS IS SUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO EXPLAIN AWAY WHY THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING.
THEY'VE GOT THE FULL FORCE OF THE COUNTY AFTER THEM.
THEY'VE GOT, THEY'VE GOT FIVE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS LOOKING TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL THE LABYRINTH OF LAWS THAT EXIST.
AND, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, YOUR YOUR, YOUR FOCUS TODAY IS TO EVALUATE THE SINGLE ISSUE.
SO THEY'RE NOT DONE WITH THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY'S NOT DONE WITH THEM.
THIS IS GONNA BE A MUCH LONGER BALL GAME THAN THIS ONE INNING.
AND SO I THINK THAT YOU, YOU, UM, YOU'VE GOTTA COMPARTMENTALIZE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR YOU TO BASE YOUR DECISION ON MY CLIENT'S FAILURE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT, EVEN THOUGH TRUE, ULTIMATELY THE, THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS BOARD BEING HEARD TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE 50% OR MORE.
ALRIGHT? WELL, THE, THE OTHER THING IS THAT, UH, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE 42,000 FOR ALL THAT WORK WAS A FAIR NUMBER.
THE, THE, UM, I'M NOT A JUDGE
WELL, YOU LOOK LIKE ONE TODAY, JUDGE
THE, THE, THE, THE WAY APPRAISAL WORKS.
AND IF I WAS ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE APPRAISER, I WOULD, I WOULD ELICIT TESTIMONY THAT DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR DOESN'T ADD FAIR MARKET VALUE.
IF I PUT TOO MUCH MONEY INTO MY PROPERTY, SOMEONE ELSE MAY NOT PAY FOR IT.
I MAY PAY 50,000 FOR, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF SLIP AND SLIDE THAT I THINK IS REALLY GREAT AND SOME SORT OF WATERWORKS, BUT IT MAY NOT HAVE ANY MARKET VALUE.
HOT TUBS AND DECKS ARE CLASSIC EXAMPLES.
SOMEONE MAY PAY FIVE GRAND FOR A HOT TUB, BUT DOES IT ADD FIVE GRAND TO THE HOUSE? MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.
THE NEXT GUY MIGHT NOT WANT A HOT TUB.
SO THE, THE, THE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR ANALYSIS IS, IS, IS NOT FAIR MARKET VALUE.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THIS BOARD MUST CONSIDER, THE ONLY PROPER EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS FAIR MARKET VALUE, WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED AND CERTIFIED TO BE BY THE COUNTY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HOW LONG HAS NKM BEEN IN BUSINESS? I TRUTHFULLY DON'T KNOW.
AND I COULD GUESS IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
WELL, I I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF THEY HAVE BEEN, THEY WOULD KNOW, YOU KNOW, BUILDING PERMITS OR BASIC BOTTOM LINE PROCEDURE SURE.
[00:55:01]
AND SO AN APOLOGY IS NOT GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE LACK OF COMPLIANCE IN THAT REGARD.YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONAL.
AND THE 48,000, YOU COULD SPEND THAT ON ONE BATHROOM ALONE.
AND, AND, UH, SO YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT ADDING UP AT ALL.
WELL, I, I, I RECOGNIZE THERE'S NOT A QUESTION IN THERE.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOME EXTENT.
IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE, ALL YOU CAN DO IS SAY SORRY, AND TRY TO REPENT AND TRY TO WALK BACK TOWARDS WHERE YOU CAME FROM.
THEY'VE GOTTA LEARN THIS LESSON.
THEY ARE ADULTS, THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS, AND THEY'VE GOTTA APPLY THEIR, THEIR, THEIR, THEIR, THEIR LEARNING.
THIS HAS BEEN AN EXPENSIVE, UH, UH, LEARNING LESSON FOR THEM.
AND SO I I I, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO TRUST ME THAT, THAT THEY'VE GOT TO LEARN THIS LESSON AND, AND, AND, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT ADDS UP.
THE COUNTIES ADMITTED THEY SAW WORK IN PROGRESS.
THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY PUBLISHED AN ASSESSMENT WITH WORK IN PROGRESS.
THEY'VE, THEY'VE, THEY'VE GOT TO BY LAW SIGN THAT THIS IS A FAIR MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT.
AND SO THE, THE DIFFICULTY OF COMPARTMENTALIZING IS REAL.
I DON'T THINK HUMANS NATURALLY DO IT.
I THINK THAT WE ALL CONSIDER ALL OF OUR HUMAN EXPERIENCES WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS IN THIS, IN THIS SITUATION THOUGH, THE BOARD'S BEING TASKED WITH DETERMINING THAT SINGLE QUESTION AND THAT SINGLE QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY THE ONLY COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
AND THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO, I LIKE TO TELL MY CLIENTS THERE'S NO JUSTICE ON EARTH.
WE, WE'VE GOTTA TRUST HIM ON THAT BECAUSE WE, WE, UM, WE CAN'T TAKE THAT ON OURSELVES.
SO I I'M ASKING YOU, MR. GALE, TO TRUST THAT JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED TODAY IN THE BIG PICTURE, AND THAT MY CLIENTS ARE LEARNING A VERY EXPENSIVE LESSON AND THE COUNTY'S NOT DONE WITH THEM AT ALL.
I PROMISE YOU THAT THEY'RE GONNA, THAT BUILDING INSPECTION WILL BE THE MOST ROBUST BUILDING INSPECTION THAT'S PROBABLY OCCURRED THIS CENTURY IN AKIMA COUNTY.
AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DONE EVERY, UH, AND EVERY T OKAY.
ACROSS EVERY T CAN I MAKE A CON? HE WOULD A CHANCE TO REBUT.
THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
IT'S NOT A SHORTFALL, UNINTENTIONAL.
THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND THEY GOT CAUGHT.
AND THEY'VE GOTTA LEARN THE LESSON.
BUT YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN IN COURT.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE JUDGE GONNA SAY WHEN YOU TELL HIM THAT? WELL, IF YOU, IF YOU, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT HE'S GONNA TELL YOU.
IT DOESN'T 'CAUSE I NEVER KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE IS GONNA SAY.
AND, UM, I'M GOING TO, IF THE JUDGE READS THESE COMMENTS ON THE RECORD, I'M GONNA TELL HIM THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING SOMETHING.
YOU SHOULDN'T, I'M GONNA SAY THE JUDGE, WE'VE GOTTA STICK TO THE NARROW ISSUE.
AND THIS BOARD'S GOTTA GOTTA LOOK AT THE, THE COMPETENT FACTS.
NOT, UM, THEIR PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOTTA PUNISH MY PERSON BECAUSE OF THEIR FAILURES TO DO IT RIGHT.
YEAH, WE, BUT WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD FROM, WE, WE ARE ON A TIME CLOCK.
AND SO THE COUNTY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO, TO SPEAK ON WHAT YOU SAID, AND THEN YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO REBUT WHATEVER THE COUNTY HAS GIVEN.
WE, WE'VE NEVER, EVER HAD ANY CROSS EXAMINATION NO.
SO, SO WE'LL ASK THAT THE COUNTY COME UP AND RESPOND TO, UH, THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU BOUGHT, AND THEN YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO REBUT.
AND THEN WE WILL GO INTO, WELL, I, I KEEP CALLING EVERYBODY JUDGE.
THE, THE, I BEG THAT YOU'D, UM, FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AND THE BYLAWS AND, AND ASK FOR STATEMENTS OF PERSONS IN FAVOR AND THEN PO PERSONS IN OPPOSITION AND THEN ALLOW ME TO REBUT.
THEY'VE HAD, THEY'VE HAD 20 MINUTES, UM, AS THEIR STATEMENT OF APPLICATION TO BEGIN.
WHAT? UM, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT SURE I'M HEARING WHAT THE BYLAWS ARTICLE SEVEN SEVEN DASH TWO, THE, AT THE HEARING, THE ORDER SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS, A PRESENTATION, THE CASE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR B, OPEN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT OF APPLICANT.
STATEMENT OF OTHER PERSONS IN FAVOR, STATEMENT OF PERSONS OPPOSITION, AND THEN MY REBUTTAL.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE, WE, WE STICK TO THAT, UH, RATHER THAN GIVE THE COUNTY, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PERSONS TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK OKAY.
AND SO THE, SO THE, I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY'S AFFORDED ANOTHER CHANCE IS WHAT I'M, IS WHAT I'M READING FROM THE BYLAWS.
WELL, WE DO HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HERE.
I JUST THINK IT'S A BREACH OF THE BYLAWS.
[01:00:02]
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.AND TO BE CLEAR, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.
I DO NOT REPRESENT THE BOARD OF ZONING PEOPLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO START BY POINTING OUT THAT STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS PRESUMED CORRECT.
THE BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THAT PRESUMPTION IS ON THE APPLICANT.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM MR. SHERMAN TODAY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS.
BASICALLY WHAT HE HAS SAID IS THAT THE 2024 ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSOR IS BINDING ON THIS BOARD.
THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW.
THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA PROVIDES, IT DOES PROVIDE THAT YOU MUST ASSESS PROPERTY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.
BUT THE PURPOSE OF THAT ASSESSMENT IS FOR TAXATION.
IT IS NOT TO, TO PROVE ANYTHING TO THIS BOARD.
WE WENT TO MR. HURTLE, NOT BASED, NOT FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, NOT TO EXPLAIN HIS ASSESSMENT, BUT TO GIVE US A PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT NKM MADE TO THIS PROPERTY.
AND HIS, HIS PROFESSIONAL OPINION WAS THAT IT WAS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE 50% STANDARD.
AND FURTHER, HE IS A CERTIFIED APPRAISER.
HE'S BEEN AT THIS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE'S DOING.
AND HE LOOKED AT THE MLS LISTING AND HE, HE LOOKED AT THE PICTURES THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKAGE AND WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE USING VARIOUS, UM, TREATISES AND, AND FORMS FORMULAS THAT THE VALUE WAS, I THINK ABOUT 300,000.
IS THAT RIGHT? I THINK IT'S 400.
AND THEN AGAIN, WHEN HE HAS THE INFORMATION THAT HE NEEDED TO MAKE AN APPRAISAL AN ASSESSMENT IN 2024, HE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
HE DID GO BACK AND LOOK FOR A PERMIT.
WHEN HE SAW THE WORK BEING DONE, HIS PEOPLE WENT BACK AND LOOKED FOR A PERMIT.
THERE WAS NO PERMIT BECAUSE MR. SHERMAN'S CLIENT HAD NOT APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, AND THEREFORE HE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN 2024 IN ORDER TO MAKE AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT IT'S INVALID THAT THIS, THIS ASSESSMENT THAT WAS MADE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BECAUSE OF NK M'S ACTIONS VIOLATIONS OF LAW.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S BINDING ON THIS BOARD.
AND IN FACT, ASSESSMENTS FOR TAXATION PURPOSES CAN BE APPEALED FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS.
SO THERE'S NOTHING BINDING ABOUT THIS ASSESSMENT, ESPECIALLY NOT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO WE WOULD ASK THAT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, YOU FIND THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTION OF CORRECTNESS HAS NOT BEEN OVERCOME BY A ME ALLEGATION.
THAT THE ASSESSOR HAS, HAS ISSUED AN OPINION THAT IS BINDING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT BINDING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE BY LAW.
AND HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO ASSESS THE FACTS IN 2024.
AND THEN WHEN HE HAD ACCESS TO THE MLS LISTING IN 2025, HE WAS ABLE TO RENDER HIS PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AS IS PERMITTED BY THE FEMA GUIDELINES.
AND HIS ASSESSMENT UPHOLDS THE OPINION OR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
AND WE ASK THAT THE BOARD ALSO UPHOLD THE DETERMINATION OF THE, OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
I AND ALSO, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M SORRY.
THERE WERE STATEMENTS, FACTUAL STATEMENTS MADE THAT I CAN'T ADDRESS SUCH AS, UH, NKM BEGGED PRACTICALLY BEGGED TO SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS NOT CORRECT, BUT I CANNOT SPEAK FACTUALLY ONE OF THE, THE, UH, INSPECTORS OR MR. ICK COULD ADDRESS THAT QUESTION AS, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED IF THEY BY NKM, WHETHER THEY COULD SUBMIT A, A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND I THINK THE ANSWER WILL BE THAT THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
[01:05:05]
LEE.PAM, BUT DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, UH, AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WITH REGARDS TO, UM, SUBMITTING THOSE BUILDING PERMITS, WE ASKED THEM SIX TIMES TO SUBMIT BUILDING PERMITS.
THERE WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, UH, THERE WAS ALSO THE SEPARATE ISSUE OF RAISING THE HOUSE, BUT WE'VE BEEN REALLY WILLING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS, BUT THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THE APP, THE, THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.
NUMBER ONE, THEY DO HAVE TO SUBMIT, UH, BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY DONE.
IF IT'S DETERMINED AT THAT POINT THAT, UM, AND, AND ALSO THE, UM, UH, UH, THE COSTS OF, OR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY PUT INTO THAT.
WHEN WE GET A FACTUAL, UH, WHEN WE GET A FACTUAL LIST OF THE COSTS AND WE MEASURE THAT AGAINST THE, UH, AGAINST THE ASSESSED VALUE, THEN WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE, UH, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT TO ELEVATION.
THERE ARE, UH, AS FAR AS THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE GOES, REGARDLESS OF THE ORIGIN, WHETHER THAT'S STATE OR FEDERAL, IT'S IN COUNTY CODE.
AND WE ARE CHARGED WITH, UH, UH, WITH, WITH THE ENFORCING THAT.
BUT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF GETTING THE CORRECT INFORMATION, WE'VE ASKED THEM SIX TIMES TO PROVIDE US WITH THE, WITH BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
AND, UH, AND WE'VE ALSO ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH A, A, A FACTUAL, UH, UH, LIST OF HOW MUCH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS COST.
SO WE ARE, WE'RE LACKING THE INFORMATION TO, TO PROCEED.
UH, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE, WE RECEIVED THIS, UH, THIS APPEAL.
WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN, UH, VERY PATIENT IN TRYING TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANTS.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE ONLY FOLKS WHO OBJECT TO, TO THE, THE CLIENTS IMPROVING THIS PROPERTY IS THE COUNTY.
THE, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAVE BOTH SPOKEN IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, UM, TO OUR REQUEST.
AND THERE'S REALLY TWO REASONS WHY YOU'VE GOT TO REVERSE THE DECISION PLAYING TO YOUR EMOTIONS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR WOULD'VE COULD'VE HAPPENED ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BEAR INTO THIS.
YOU'VE GOTTA DECIDE BASED ON THE LAW, WHETHER OR NOT THIS, UM, DECISION SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS YES OR NO.
I'M ASKING YOU TO REVERSE THAT DECISION FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, THEY KEEP MS. PROCTOR REFERRED TO FEMA GUIDELINES.
MR. PAM SAID, REGARDLESS OF ORIGIN, THESE ARE TACIT ADMISSIONS.
THE COUNTY CAN ONLY ENFORCE STATE LAW.
THE COUNTY'S SOURCE OF POWER IS RICHMOND.
THEY CAN ONLY ENFORCE STATE LAW IF THEY ACCEPTED MONEY TO PUT ORDINANCES ON THE BOOKS THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOW SEEKING TO ENFORCE.
THAT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THEIR POWER.
TWO, MR. PAM SAID THEY LACK INFO.
THE, THE, THE THIRD ATTACHMENT TO YOUR PACKAGE IS TITLED AN ESTIMATE, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A ROUGH GUESS CHAIRMAN.
WE, WE, SO WHILE THEY'RE SEEKING TO ENFORCE ORDINANCES NOT BASED IN STATE LAW, THE STATE LAW DOES BIND THEM TO ATTACHMENTS ONE AND TWO, WHICH IS THEIR OWN TAX ASSESSMENT VALUATION.
I'VE QUOTED THE CONSTITUTION FOR YOU.
I'VE QUOTED THREE CASES FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, 2001, 1990 AND 1976.
AND SO 180 3 800 AFTER THE FACT, 1 35, 900
[01:10:03]
IS PLAINLY LESS THAN 50%.THAT'S THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THAT'S SWORE TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY THE ASSESSOR.
THE THIRD, WHICH THEY GENNED UP FOR THIS HEARING, IS LABELED AN ESTIMATE.
AN ESTIMATE'S DEFINED AS A ROUGH GUESS.
I'VE PROVIDED YOU THE, THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA'S DECISIONS FROM 2006 AND 1996 THAT SAYS SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.
SO TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.
MY CLIENTS HAVE GOTTA MAKE REPAIRS WITH RELATIONSHIPS AND WITH THE HOUSE.
THEY'VE GOTTA, THEY'VE GOTTA FOLLOW THE LAW.
LIKEWISE, THIS BOARD HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
THE LAW IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THE LAW IS THAT AN ESTIMATE AFTER THE FACT IS NOT.
AND THIS IS ALL TO ENFORCE FEMA GUIDELINES, WHICH AREN'T BASED IN STATE LAW.
SO FOR THE TWO REASONS THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A REVERSAL, AND THAT STATE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE, I'M ASKING YOU TO REVERSE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION.
ALLOW US TO PROCEED TO A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WITHOUT RAISING THE HOUSE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT IN ACCORD WITH YOUR BYLAWS, BUT YOU DO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW ME TO REBUT HIS MISSTATEMENTS OF THE LAW BECAUSE HE HAS MISSTATED THE LAW.
ADDRESSING FIRST HIS, HIS AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESSING FIRST HIS STATEMENT THAT WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT FLOOD Z FLOOD PLAIN ZONE ORDINANCES.
WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY IN SECTION 15.2 9 84 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, WHICH STATES ANY LOCALITY MADE BY ORDINANCE REGULATE THE ACTIVITY ON USE OF, OR DEVELOPMENT OF A FLOODPLAIN IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH ANY STATE OR FEDERAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
THEREFORE, WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY THAT HE SAYS WE DON'T HAVE.
AND SECONDLY, AGAIN, HE'S GIVEN YOU THE CONSTITUTION AND THESE CASES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH TAX ASSESSMENTS, THEY DON'T RELATE TO THE MATTER BEFORE THE BOARD.
YES, MR. HURTLE IS SUPPOSED TO DO HIS BEST TO REACH FAIR MARKET VALUE, BUT HE CANNOT REACH FAIR MARKET VALUE IF HE DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPER INFORMATION.
AND HE WAS NOT GIVEN THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE NO, THE APPLICANT FAILED TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO HE'S DONE HIS BEST, BUT WHAT HE CAME UP WITH AFFECTS TAXES.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS BOARD, THE REASON HE WAS ASKED TO DO AN ASSESSMENT OF, OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN BETWEEN ANNUAL SET OR BIANNUAL ASSESSMENTS IS BECAUSE FEMA GUIDELINES ALLOW THAT.
BECAUSE WE COULD NOT GET THE INFORMATION FROM NKM.
WE SENT THEM REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND YOU SAW WHAT WE GOT BACK BECAUSE WE COULD NOT GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THEM.
WE WENT TO MR. HURTLE AS PERMITTED BY THE FEMA GUIDELINES AND, AND HE CAME UP WITH THE ASSESSMENT.
DO YOU HAVE, COULD WE GET THE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK ON THE BOARD? WHAT YOU, WE'VE HEARD A LOT BEFORE US TODAY.
ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? MM-HMM
I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE RESIDENT STRUCTURE AT 2 4 0 7 0 TALL PINES DRIVE INCREASE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE BUILDING BY 50% OR MORE.
IN THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 0 6 DASH 360 9 B OF THE AKIMA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE MUST BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLOOD ZONE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE VIRGINIA USBC.
ALL OPPOSED? MOTION'S BEEN LY.
DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK BEFORE WE GO? YEAH, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO USE THE BATHROOM OR ANYTHING, YOU NEED
[01:15:01]
A BREAK OR ANYTHING? I'M GOOD FOR ONCE YOU GOOD.LET'S, WE CAN TAKE A FIVE TO 10 MINUTE BREAK IF YOU GOTTA, IF YOU GOTTA GO, GO.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, A FIVE TO 10 MINUTE BREAK AND WE, I MAKE, I MET YOUR WIFE AND YOUR OF COURSE, I'VE KNOWN YOUR BABY GIRLFRIEND TO YOU WERE AT FARM? NO, NO.
OH, SHE WAS WITH GRANDMA AND YOUR WIFE? YEP.
UH, ELEANOR LIKES GO TO SEE PAUL.
I LIKED, UH, I ASKED YOUR WIFE IF YOU PLAY GOLF
UM, AND ELEANOR, LIKE ELEANOR ACTUALLY TRIES TO PLAY.
BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL SHE'S GOT.
YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA HIT.
WHEN I WAS AT THE FIRST TEE PROGRAM TEACHING LIKE FIVE AND SIX YEAR OLDS, IT WAS LIKE, LOOK, IT MAY NOT SEEM, IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE MUCH NOW.
THE GOLF IS A SPORT YOU CAN PLAY LONG AFTER BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL WAS GONE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK I'M GONNA HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE MY FARMHOUSE, MY PARENTS SPLIT OFF IN 1992 DAKOTA TAPE.
AND IT'S, UH, WE HAVE A DEEDED PROPERTY.
ANYWAY, IT'S, IT'S A FARMHOUSE AT THE END OF THE FORM.
WELL, THAT WAS BEFORE SOME OF THOSE, THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY HOME.
HUH? THE DOOR LOCKED? NO, THEY JUST CLOSED THE DOOR TO KEEP THE NOTE.
'CAUSE SOMETIMES PEOPLE TALK A LOT MORE.
NO, YEAH, WE, WE'VE GOT, I'D HIRE THEM.
[01:20:01]
ZONING BOARD APPEALS, UH, BACK TO ORDER SEND YOU.UM, WE HAVE, UH, UH, MS. CHRISTOPHER RA CHRISTOPHER.
THIS IS A VARIANCE 35 20 26, AND THIS IS MULTIPLE, UH, MULTIPLE SETBACK VARIANCES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
UH, TIARA, MS. UH, THE APPLICANT.
UH, THERE ARE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, LOCATIONS.
4 3 2 0 HORN TOWN CIRCLE OR TAX MAP NUMBER 13 A DASH TWO DASH 11.
UH, IT'S LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO, IS A LITTLE OVER A QUARTER ACRE.
UH, THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL AND THE REQUEST IS FOR, UH, MULTIPLE FRONT STEPBACK VARIANCES.
UH, FUTURE LAND USE RECOMMENDATION IS AGRICULTURAL.
AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF RESIDENTIAL AREA ON THE PARCEL AS WELL.
UH, AND I'LL JUST SKIP DOWN TO ADJACENT USES BEING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
UH, ON THE LEFT, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THEM, THEY HAVE SOME, UH, FARM LAND.
OKAY? SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
UH, YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S MOSTLY ZONED AG FOR FUTURE LAND USE, BUT THERE'S A LITTLE SLIVER OF RESIDENTIAL IN THE, UH, EASTERN CORNER, NOT IN A FLOOD ZONE, NOT IN RPA.
AND THESE ARE SOME, UH, PICTURES OF THE SITE.
THIS IS, UH, I BELIEVE THIS IS HORN TOWN ROAD GOING BACK TOWARDS THE HIGHWAY.
THIS IS HORN TOWN ROAD GOING TOWARDS HORN TOWN.
UH, THIS IS THE ENTRANCE, OR THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM THE FRONT OF THE PARCEL.
IT'S IN A CUL-DE-SAC, THIS PARCEL.
AND THEN, UH, KIND OF WHERE YOU SEE THE DIRT IS KIND OF THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE SINGLE WIDE AROUND THAT AREA.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.
UH, WE ARE REQUESTING, UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR MULTIPLE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES.
I'M GONNA TRY AND EXPLAIN IT REALLY QUICK.
SO WE'VE GOT, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, WE'VE GOT A FRONT HERE.
WE'VE GOT A FRONT HERE, AND WE'VE GOT A FRONT HERE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S MULTIPLE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES, JUST TO MAKE SURE ALL OUR BASES ARE COVERED.
SO THEN WE GO TO CONSIDERATIONS FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.
NUMBER ONE, STRICT APPLICATION SLASH UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION VERSUS ALLEVIATING HARDSHIP FROM A PHYSICAL CONDITION.
WHILE THE PROPERTY IS AT SUCH A SIZE THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE STRUCTURE, THE LOCATION COULD BE ALTERED TO LESSEN THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT SETBACK.
ALSO, A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE COULD BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY THAT COULD LESSEN THE VARIANCE REQUIRED.
UH, NUMBER TWO, GOOD FAITH ACQUISITIONS AND, UH, NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
WHILE THE PROPERTY IS OF A SHAPE AND SIZE THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR MOST RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, IT IS THE APPLICANT'S DECISION AS TO THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE MANUFACTURING HOME.
UH, WHAT I WILL SAY THERE IS, WHILE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE, UH, THE ANSWER IS NO.
THEY COULD PUT SOMETHING THERE THAT IS SMALLER, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY LESSEN IT.
THE, THE LOT IS OF A SIZE WHERE THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT COULD FIT ON HERE BY RIGHT.
IF ANYTHING COULD FIT HERE BY RIGHT.
UH, NUMBER THREE, SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
WHILE THE LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD NEED SETBACK RELIEF, THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, GENERAL OR RECURRING ENOUGH IN NATURE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE.
AND THE ANSWER THERE IS NO, THIS REQUEST IS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE.
UH, NUMBER FIVE, RESULT IN A USE NOT OTHERWISE PERMITTED.
UH, NO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS SUCH AS THESE ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
AND NUMBER SIX, IS THE REVENUE SOUGHT AVAILABLE THROUGH SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND THE ANSWER THERE IS NO, UH, UTILITIES ARE ON HORN TOWN CIRCLE, AND THERE'S AN EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, HORN TOWN CIRCLE IS A PRIVATE STREET THAT IS IN AVERAGE CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS, UH, NOTICES WERE PROVIDED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND TO ADJACENT OWNERS PER STATE LAW.
AS A PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
STAFF FINDINGS, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A SINGLE WIDE MANUFACTURED HOME ON THE PROPERTY.
THE LOCATION OF A SINGLE WIDE REQUIRES MULTIPLE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES, AND THE APPLICANT COULD PLACE A SINGLE WIDE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD BE LESSENED.
THE APPLICANT COULD ALSO PLACE A SMALLER STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, WITH THE CAVEAT OF MORE THAN LIKELY WE WOULD STILL BE HERE.
UH, STAFF USUALLY DOES NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON VARIANCES.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE THRESHOLD FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.
I WOULD SAY, UH, STRICT APPLICATION OF FOR VARIANCES WOULD BE A NO.
UM, AND THEN IF THE BCA WERE TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, UH, CONDITIONS ONE
[01:25:01]
THROUGH SIX.NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED PERMITS FROM THE COUNTY'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PROPOSED MANUFACTURED HOME.
NUMBER TWO, THE BUILDING APPLICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.
UH, NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CLEARLY FLAG ALL FOUR CORNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF THE SINGLE WIDE, UH, SUBSET.
A, THIS DELINEATION MUST BE CERTIFIED BY A LICENSE SURVEYOR TO CONSU TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE AND ACCURACY.
AND B, THE PROPERTY CORNER FLAG SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, THE APPLICANT SHALL ALLOW THE COUNTY TO MAKE INSPECTIONS OF THE SITE WHILE THE SINGLE WIDE IS BEING PLACED.
UH, NUMBER FIVE, THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO FALL INTO DISREPAIR WHILE THE SINGLE WIDE IS BEING PLACED ON THE SITE.
AND NUMBER SIX, A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS SHALL, UH, RENDER THE VARIANCE NULL VOID.
UM, I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT, THESE ARE THE EXACT VARIANCES.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE SPELLED OUT EXACTLY WHAT VARIANCES, UH, FROM EACH PROPERTY LINE THEY'RE GONNA NEED IN ORDER TO BUILD THIS, UH, SINGLE, YOU KNOW, PUT SINGLE WIDE THERE.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? SO I HAVE, WELL, IT'S NOT A QUESTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS LOT IS A GRANDFATHERED NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD.
SO REGARDLESS, AS YOU SAID, REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE IT, OF THE STRUCTURE, IT WILL NOT MEET THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, CORRECT? AS FAR AS SETBACK ARE CONCERNED.
BECAUSE BECAUSE IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL, THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON.
ONE, IN THE ORDINANCE, WE, WE TALK ABOUT CATEGORY TWO MANUFACTURED HOMES.
UH, THE MINIMUM FOR CATEGORY TWO MANUFACTURED HOMES IS 14 BY 55 IN RESIDENTIAL.
SO I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THAT IF THEY WANTED TO DO A MINIMUM 14 BY 55 MINUTE, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO COME HERE.
QUESTION SENT IN YOU, YOU MENTIONED CONDITION TWO, CONSISTENT WITH THE VARIANCE APPLICATION MM-HMM
AND THEN YOU MENTIONED CERTAIN SETBACKS REQUIRED AT THE END OF THE SLIDE.
THE, THESE ARE THE EXACT, THESE ARE THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS.
BUT I LOOK AT THE BZA APPLICATION WITH THE SITE PLAN.
WELL, THE, THE, WE ARE GOING OFF OF THIS ONE THAT OH, OKAY.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING OFF OF.
SO YEAH, WHEN WE, IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THIS APP, THIS SITE PLAN WILL BE WHAT WE GIVE THE APPLICANT.
UM, YEAH, WHEN WAS THE LOT CREATED? I DO NOT HAVE AN EXACT DATE OF THE SITE PLAN.
MAY HAVE, MAY GIVE US AN IDEA IF, I BELIEVE IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.
YEAH, I KNOW THAT, THAT WE GOT FORMS. IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
THAT COULD HAVE JUST BEEN THEM DOING A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF SEVERAL LOTS.
I DO BELIEVE THIS PREDATE, THIS PREDATES 99 AND I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN.
IT PREDATES HORN TOWN CIRCLE'S.
CHRISTOPHER, HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANNA SHARE? NO.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
ARE WE READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? YES, SIR.
I MOVED AT ACK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONE APPEALS APPROVES, BUT VARIANCE 0 0 0 0 3 5 DASH 2 0 2 6 VARIANCE IS 35 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
34.9 FEET FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, AND 33.05 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERN PROPERTY.
FROM THE 100 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE AKIMA COUNTY CODE 1 0 6 DASH 81 WITH THE CON, WITH THE SIX CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, I THINK THAT'S 50 FOOT.
ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
[01:30:03]
OKAY.UH, THIS IS CATHERINE ETHERIDGE.
AND THIS IS TEMPORARY HABITATION OF AN RV.
UM, AGAIN, CATHERINE OR, UH, MS. MS. ES, MS. ETHERIDGE IS THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THIS IS, UH, 1 7 2 8 7 BIG ROAD OR TAX MAP NUMBER 68 DASH A DASH 1 0 9, DISTRICT FOUR, APPROXIMATELY 9.29 ACRES ZONE AGRICULTURAL.
UH, THE CURRENT USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
UH, ADJACENT ZONINGS ARE ALSO AG.
UM, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR REFERENCE.
THE, UH, THE RV IS APPROXIMATELY WHERE MY POINTER IS RIGHT THERE.
UH, SO THERE'S THE AERIAL ZONED AG.
UH, FUTURE LAND USE IS ALSO AG, UH, NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN, NOT IN THE RPA.
THESE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE SITE.
THIS IS A BIG ROAD, BIG ROAD GOING NORTH TO, LIKE, YOU'RE GOING TO BLOCKS ZONE.
THIS IS BIG ROAD GOING SOUTH TO MONT.
THERE IS THE RV ITSELF, AND THAT IS THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT IS BEING RENOVATED.
WE DO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT.
UH, THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THAT THE TRAILER WAY OFF THE PROPERTY LINES.
SO NOW WE GO TO, UH, CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
UH, ONE ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, GENERALLY THE USE OF AN RV FOR HABITATION IN ONE LOCATION WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOWEVER, THIS USE WOULD BE FOR TEMPORARY HABITATION, WHILE THE WELL INSTEAD OF CONSTRUCTED A DWELLING IS BEING RENOVATED, UH, THIS USE WOULD HAVE NO LONG-TERM IMPACTS.
UH, NUMBER TWO, ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES.
UH, NO ADVERSE IMPACT IS ANTICIPATED.
UH, NUMBER THREE, PRESERVATION AND CREATION OF AN ATTRACTIVE AND HARMONIOUS COMMUNITY.
UH, THE USE OF AN RV FOR HABITATION WOULD NOT FACILITATE THE PRESERVATION AND CREATION OF AN ATTRACTIVE AND HARMONIOUS COMMUNITY.
HOWEVER, SINCE THIS USE IS TEMPORARY HABITATION, THE EFFECTS WOULD BE TEMPORARY.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR SCENIC.
HISTORIC AND WATERFRONT DISTRICTS, UH, NO LONG-TERM IMPACT IS ANTICIPATED.
THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED NEAR ANY OF THESE AREAS.
UH, NUMBER FIVE, ADVERSE IMPACT TO PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THAT VALUES OF ADJOINING OWNERS.
UH, THE USE OF A TRAVEL TRAILER FOR HABITATION ONE LOCATION IMPACTS THE VALUE OF ADJOINING A NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS.
HOWEVER, THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THIS REQUEST WOULD LESSEN THE IMPACT IN THE LONG TERM.
UH, NUMBER SIX, THE, UH, PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.
THIS USE WILL NEITHER HINDER NOR PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE.
UH, NUMBER SEVEN, THE PROPOSED USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOOD ZONING PRACTICE.
UH, THE ANSWER THERE IS YES, THIS USE IS ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
AND NUMBER EIGHT, IS IT, UH, JUSTIFIED BY PUBLIC NECESSITY OR CONVENIENCE? THE ANSWER IS NO.
THIS USE HAS NO BEARING ON PUBLIC NECESSITY OR CONVENIENCE.
UTILITIES, ELECTRIC SERVICE IS ALONG BIG ROAD.
UH, BIG ROAD IS A V MAINTAINED SECONDARY HIGHWAY.
IT IS AN AVERAGE CONDITION, UH, PUBLIC, UH, EXCUSE ME, NOTICES WERE PROVIDED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND TO ADJACENT OWNERS PER STATE LAW.
UM, AS FAR AS THE SECOND BULLET, WHAT I PASSED OUT IN THE BEGINNING WAS A LETTER FROM A MS. SATTERWHITE THAT WAS NOT OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT.
SO YOU HAVE, UH, ONE STATEMENT THERE IN FAVOR OF, OF THIS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY HABITATION OF AN RV WHILE A DWELLING IS CONSTRUCTED.
UH, NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA ARE IMPACTED, I WOULD SAY LONG TERM BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE RV.
AND, UH, BLDR 2 40 20 26 WAS APPLIED FOR IN ORDER TO RENOVATE THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT DUE TO THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE RV.
SHOULD THE BZA APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL RELEVANT COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF VDOT REGULATIONS.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF THE SITE IS PROHIBITED.
NUMBER THREE, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES WHILE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS ACTIVE.
NUMBER FOUR, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH A SITE PLAN AND NARRATIVE AS SUBMITTED.
UH, NUMBER FIVE, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE EITHER ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OR WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
UH, NUMBER SIX, THE RV SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR THE APPLICANT OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER.
AND NUMBER SEVEN, A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS SHALL RE, SHALL RENDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NULL AND VOID.
UM, JUST AS AN ASIDE, IT, THIS MORE
[01:35:01]
THAN LIKELY DIFFERS FROM WHAT I GAVE YOU BECAUSE WE HAD, WE HAD, UM, EXPIRATION DATES OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT DIFFERENT.UH, BUT SINCE THIS IS, UH, TEMPORARY, SINCE THE RV'S TEMPORARY IN IN NATURE, WE WENT WITH CONDITION FIVE.
THAT'S THE, UH, RECOMMENDED MOTION I COULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALSO, THE, UH, OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
UH, DID THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? UM, ONLY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
UH, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME? UH, MY NAME IS CATHERINE ERIDGE.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH ON ALL MATTERS BEFORE? YES, SIR.
MY ONLY QUESTION WAS IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO THE, UH, DO DO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE ONE YEAR IS SUFFICIENT FOR, WILL IT BE OR ARE YOU GONNA HAVE TO GOD, I HOPE SO.
ARE YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IF THAT'S NOT A OCCUPANCY, SHE WOULD'VE TO COME BACK, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT'S, SO THAT'S CORRECT.
IN, IN THE EVENT THAT IN THE EVENT THAT AFTER ONE YEAR YOU'RE NOT DONE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN.
SO IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU WANT MORE TIME, YOU'D HAVE TO REQUEST IT.
I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO BE IN MY HOUSE.
BUT I MEAN, YOU, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND ISN SO BAD.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'D MUCH RATHER BE IN MY HOUSE.
WELL, I MEAN, YOU, YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING, DAVID.
I MEAN, YOU COULD NOW SAY WE, WE COULD MAKE THAT A YEAR AND A HALF AT LEAST, OR EIGHT 18 MONTHS.
WE'VE DONE 18 MONTHS, BUT I MEAN, MIGHT BE A LITTLE BETTER, YOU KNOW, WHERE I TRAVEL FOR WORK.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE YOU ON THE, THE RENOVATION SPECTRUM? ARE YOU 50%, 25%, 75%? UM, WELL, COUNTING WHERE THEY'RE RAISING THE HOUSE THAT PUTS IT, A LOT OF THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE.
UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF DAMAGE WAS DONE BY RAISING THE HOUSE.
BECAUSE WE HAD TO CUT ALL THE ELECTRIC, ALL THE PLUMBING HAD TO BE CUT 'CAUSE IT WAS ALL UNDER REJOICED.
SO ALL OF IT HAS TO BE REDONE.
SO THE ONLY THING IS, SO A YEAR AND A HALF WOULD BE AWESOME.
I REALLY HOPE TO NOT BE IN THE RV THAT MUCH LONGER.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING GRACIE? NOT FOR OKAY.
IS THERE SUCH, UM, IS THERE SUCH THING AS AN EXTENSION NOW? I KNOW YEARS AGO WE USED TO DO AN EXTENSION WITHOUT REAPPLYING.
UM, I THINK, IS THERE A SUCH THING? I THINK THERE IS A, A METHOD BY WHICH WE COULD DO THAT.
BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE, WE STILL HAVE TO ADVERTISE.
WE WOULD STILL DO THE APPLICATION FEE, BUT WE, AND IT WOULD, HOW WE DO IT IS IT GOES UNDER AN UPDATED SPECIAL USE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF THE FLOW.
BUT IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY WORK THE SAME WAY AND IT WOULD BE ON GOOD FAITH THAT WORK IS PROCEEDING? CORRECT.
UH, WE DID HAVE ONE PERSON WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK BRUCE.
DID, DID YOU NEED TO SPEAK BRUCE? I SHOULD SAY HER ALL THIS TIME.
UH, WOULD, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME? BRUCE HOOVER.
BRUCE, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH ON ALL MATTERS THERE BEFORE US? I DO.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, BRUCE? WELL, I'VE BEEN A, A RESIDENT ON BIG ROAD FOR SOME 46 YEARS NOW.
UH, MY WIFE, JANET AND I, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO, TO THE RV BEING THERE.
I, SHE'S WORKING HER TAIL OFF TRYING TO GET THE HOUSE FIXED UP AND REDONE.
UM, AND OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW, UH, WELL IN THE AREA, I, I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO DOES, UH, OR WOULD OBJECT TO IT OR, AND HAD SAID ANYTHING IN, IN ALL THIS TIME.
SO, UM, SHE'S A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SHE IS SPENDING LOTS OF TIME AND LOTS OF MONEY UPGRADING THE HOUSE, FIXING ALL THE STUFF THAT WAS WRONG THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW WAS WRONG.
UM, IF YOU DRIVE ANY OF THE BACK ROADS IN THE COUNTY, YOU SEE YARDS FULL OF JUNK ABANDONED CARS AND YES, EVEN CAMPERS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN LIKE EVERYWHERE, IT'S KIND OF THE RURAL AREA THAT WE'RE IN.
UM, BUT, UM, SHE'S MAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER.
SHE'S HELPING PROPERTY VALUES OBVIOUSLY WITH THE TIME SHE GETS DONE.
AND, UM, I FIND IT DIFFICULT, HOWEVER, TO UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WAS FORCED TO MOVE THE, THE, UM, THE CAMPER ONLY A FEW FEET BECAUSE IT WAS TOO CLOSE BY A COUPLE OF FEET TO HER OWN BUILDING, DIDN'T AFFECT ANYBODY ELSE.
BUT THEN SHE HAD TO, BY PHIL, HAVE IT MOVED, DO THE FIELD, AND THEN SHE'S GOTTA MOVE IT BACK AND RE-LEVEL.
AND IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF SILLY TO ME.
BUT, UM, IN ANY CASE, SHE SHOULD BE APPLAUDED FOR HER EFFORTS AND NOT PUNISHED AS IT WERE.
[01:40:01]
THANK YOU.UH, WOULD YOU PUT THE RECOMMENDATION, ARE WE READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT YES.
YOU KNOW, THE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ARE FOR SAFETY, IT'S, IT'S FIRE CODE.
SO THOSE ARE MANDATED BY THE COUNTY.
I MOVE THAT ACK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVE SUSE 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 2 6.
AS OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO AKIMA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1 0 6 DASH 5 3 14 FOR TEMPORARY HABITATION OF AN RV WHILE A HOME IS BEING CONSTRUCTED WITH THE SEVEN CONDITIONS.
BUT I WANT TO AMEND THE NUMBER, NUMBER FIVE.
NUMBER FIVE CONDITIONS TO 18 MONTHS.
WE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
SO THAT CONCLUDES, UH, PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE DAY.
UM, I WAS GOING TO LIKE MAKE A, AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE ABOUT THERE BEING LIKE 15 CASES FOR NEXT MONTH, BUT I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE HAD ENOUGH YES.
UH, IT'S, UH, WE HAVE, UH, TWO RVS, UH, TWO SHEDS, UH, TWO SETBACK VARIANCES, AND A FRONTAGE VARIANCE.
UM, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE AS FAR AS THE STAFF REPORT.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, IT SEEMS LIKE, ARE WE DEALING WITH KVN AGAINST NEXT MONTH OR SOMETHING THAT, THAT REMAINS, THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN? UM, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS THAT WAS THEM SAYING THAT WE'RE WRONG IF THEY CHOOSE TO GET, WELL, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE ASKED FOR THE LANGUAGE SO THAT WE COULD ADVERTISE IT FOR THIS HEARING.
UH, MAYBE HE DROPPED IT OFF THIS MORNING, BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN INFORMED THAT YET.
SO WE DO NEED, THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE REQUESTING.
UM, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT YET.
THEIR VARIANCE WAS BASED UPON THE SECOND ACTION.
WHERE WE WOULD DISAPPROVE OF ONE AND APPROVE.
I I THINK THERE, I THINK THE VARIANCE IS THAT NOW THAT THE DZA HAS AFFIRMED THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, THAT THEY NOT BE BOUND BY IT.
SUCH THEY WOULD GET A VARIANCE FROM THE ORDINANCE, THE FLOOD HAS ORDINANCE, WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR.
I MEAN, BUT, BUT WE, BUT WE'VE INSISTED THAT THEY NEED TO ACTUALLY TELL US THAT OBVIOUSLY WE CAN
ONE, OH, I THINK IT 1 0 6 360 9.
IS THAT TO REMOVE THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET? SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO ELEVATE AT ALL AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND.
BUT I'M SAYING, AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU, YOU'LL BE REMOVING THAT TWO FOOT PLUS, PLUS THE, PLUS THE SIX.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR US TO BASICALLY THE VARIANCES I KNOW IT RIGHT NOW WITHOUT LOOKING IS HE WOULD, HE SAYS, OKAY.
I REQUEST A VARIANCE SO THAT THE 50% DOESN'T MATTER.
WHICH MEANS THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO ELEVATE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOVE TO ADJOURN.