W’burg Board of Adjustments denies councilman’s request for variance

The Williamsburg Board of Adjustments didn’t appear to be in any hurry Monday night to settle what amounted to a dispute between two citizens over the granting of a zoning variance. One citizen is a Williamsburg City Councilman and the other is a future member of the Williamsburg Board of Adjustments.

It took more than 12 minutes after board chairwoman Gail Bordes initially called for a motion to approve or deny the request before someone finally second a motion and a unanimous vote was cast to deny the request.

At issue was a zoning variance request by Richard Foley, who is a long time Williamsburg City Councilman and a former member of the Williamsburg Planning and Zoning Commission.

Foley sought permission to subdivide a lot he owns on Pelham Street in order to build a second rental house on the property.

If subdivided though, neither lot would have met the 7,500-square foot size requirements of an R-1 zone. Both would be about 6,000-square feet.

The lots also wouldn’t have met the requirement for 75 feet of street frontage and instead would have had only 69 feet of frontage.

"It is a small rental house about 1,100 square feet. It is rental property," Foley told the board at the start of a public hearing Monday. "To me, it is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of houses and lot sizes that are there."

The woman opposing the request was Candy Shelton, who the Williamsburg City Council appointed to the Board of Adjustments in October. Foley cast the only no vote on her appointment.

Bordes said that Shelton had been appointed to the board but hadn’t been sworn in yet.

Shelton listed a whole array of reasons why she didn’t think that the request should be approved during the 20-minute long public hearing portion of the meeting, including quoting portions of several state statues.

"This is an area that may not be taken lightly. This is a matter that has strict requirements that must be met before a board approves a variance," Shelton said.

She then listed the four criteria, which have to be met.

The variance must not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. The variance will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity.

The variance can’t cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. The variance cant’ allow unreasonable circumvention of zoning regulation requirements.

"We are talking about increased traffic congestion in that area, drainage problems and water runoff that will affect the health, safety and welfare of those people living there," Shelton said.

"There is no special circumstance for needing to build a house in the back yard. There is no geographical reason why he must build a house in the back yard. Denying this variance request will not create a hardship for Mr. Foley."

Shelton also said that Foley told her in July that he planned to have the builder start construction in two weeks.

Foley denied the allegation.

"No, that is not true! I have taken enough of this that is not true!" Foley responded. "I have not violated any laws. I did not try to build a house there without zoning permission."

Foley said that he told Shelton he planned to have a builder look at it to see if it was possible to build a second house there.

Shelton later said she had a recording of the conversation but did not play it during the meeting.

She presented the board with a petition signed by several neighbors asking the board to deny the variance request.

"Due to weather and work schedules the neighbors weren’t able to come," Shelton told the board.

During her presentation, Shelton quoted the city of Williamsburg’s home page, which notes, "The council works daily for the best interest of the city and its citizens."

"I would provide this moment for Mr. Foley to listen to the citizens, the people who live on Pelham. They are requesting for this not to happen."

She provided an opportunity for Foley to withdraw the request but he declined.

Shelton noted that Foley was on the planning and zoning commission when it rezoned the property from R-2 to R-1.

Foley said the purpose of the zoning change was so that mobile homes and apartment buildings couldn’t be built there.

Shelton noted that four of the seven properties affected by the 1990 change belonged to Foley.

Foley spoke out during Monday’s meeting in favor of his request for a zoning variance.

He noted that in 2013 50 houses had been removed through demolition permits and only five new residential homes had been added.

"When you put it in perspective, how many houses are being built?" Foley asked. "We need to expand the housing base."

After closing the public hearing portion of the meeting, the board then spent the next 20 plus minutes discussing the issue and whether to approve or deny the request.

Board member Chuck Dupier noted that approving the request would effectively alter two lots down to less than 7,500 square feet.

Bordes agreed that if the lot was severed, neither would meet the zoning requirements and both would need a variance.

When Bordes asked for a vote, Board member Anna Sue Davis made a motion not to grant the zoning variance request unless the planning and zoning commission changes the requirement for square footage from 7,500 square feet to 6,000 square feet.

In order to be voted upon, a member of the board had to second the motion and no one did, which prompted further discussion.

Shelton then asked if there was a motion to approve the request.

"I see a lot of people here, who don’t want to say no, but let’s see if there are some people, who want to say yes," Shelton said.

"Are we not understanding the criteria that has to be met or is there fear of not wanting to vote one way or another?"

"I can’t answer that question," Bordes said. "I do know we have a right to hold this meeting and call for a vote."

Davis later asked if the motion could be tabled and the matter sent back to the planning and zoning board to make a decision.

Eventually, Davis amended her motion to not approve the request due to zoning regulations.

Dupier seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by Bordes, Davis, Dupier and Board member Sibyl Stricklin.

"Mr. Foley, your request has been denied," Bordes informed Foley after the vote.

Foley said after the meeting that he was "disappointed of course," with the ruling.

Foley said that he doesn’t know yet what he would do with the property.

"I don’t know for sure. I may put a garage on it. I may not," Foley said.

Shelton said she thinks that the board followed the regulations with their ruling.

"We’ve been good neighbors before and we plan to be good neighbors again," her husband, Brad Shelton added.