Loading...
BZA 11-19-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BEARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia November 19, 1996 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Meeting Minutes of October 15, 1996 3:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 2) Variance Application #019-96 of Harry J. Michael for a 20 -foot right side setback variance and a 20 -foot left side setback variance to build a single-family residence. The property is located at the intersection of Layside Drive and Sawyer Road, Lot 9, in Layside Estates; and is zoned RA (Rural Areas). The site is identified with Property Identification Number 51-A-130 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 5) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY*90ARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse, Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, on October 15, 1996. PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr.,Vice Chairman, Gainesboro District; and Ralph M. Wakeman, Shawnee District ABSENT: Oren Snapp, Back Creek District; Harold Nichols, Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I; and Carol Gordon, Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Upon motion made by Mr. Wakeman and seconded by Mr. Larrick, the minutes of September 17, 1996 were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS (3:35 p.m.) Variance Application #016-96 of Gene and Jeanne Welch for a 10 -foot front setback variance for an addition to an existing residence. The property is located at 1773 Macedonia Church Road, is zoned RA (Rural Areas), and is identified with Property Identification Number 76-A-37 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy presented the application and gave background information on the request. He showed colored photos of the property, and referenced the applicant's letter which explained his reasons's for the request. Mr. Ruddy told the Board that one of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Smoot, returned his adjoiner notification letter with a written comment that he had no objection to the variance request. 2 Mr. Ruddy stated that the staff recommendation for this variance was for denial, as no hardship exists. Chairman Sempeles asked Mr. Welch to come to the podium to present his case. Mr. Welch gave the location of the drainage field and sewer box as reasons for his request; he also referenced his letter. Discussion followed regarding the age of the house, whetherthe neighbor'shouse is closer to the right-of-way than Mr. Welch's, how many garages were on the property and how close they were to the property lines, and how much were the side yards in that zoning. Mr. Larrick asked why couldn't he use the 296 feet in the back of the house for the expansion. Mr. Welch replied that the area was the drain field and that it took up nearly the entire 296 feet. A motion was made by Mr. Wakeman to approve the variance but did not initially get a second. Mr. Larrick then seconded the motion and Variance 9016-96 was approved by the following majority vote: Chairman Sempeles, YES, in favor of the variance; Mr. Larrick, NO, opposed to the variance; Mr. Wakeman, YES, in favor of the variance. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve Variance Application #016-96 of Gene and Jeanne Welch for a 10 -foot front setback variance for an addition to an existing residence. Variance Application #018-96 of Anthony J. Harper for a 15 -foot front setback variance for construction of a single family residence. The property is located in the Opequon Estates Subdivision, is zoned RP (Residential Performance), and is identified with Property Identification Number 56-1-14 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy showed picturesof the property, and of the adjoining property with a residence, to the Board members and presented the application. He explained that staff was recommending denial on this request as the hardship is shared generally by other properties in the vicinity. Chairman Sempeles called for Mr. Harper to come to the podium. Mr. Harpertold the Board that his neighborto one side has had extensivework done to his property to prevent water damage and run-off from the road to his foundation; however, the house on the other side, which has lot conditions closer to his, is 35 feet off the roadway. He explained his reasons for requesting the variance such as the extra work and expense involved in putting in a foundation. 10 3 Questions and discussion followed on whether there was anywhere else the house could be placed besides so close to the road, how long has the well been on the property, would he consider working with a 10 -foot variance instead of 15 feet if the had to, and what did his neighbor do to deal with the drainage problem. Mr. Harper explained that he wanted to bring the house up to road level as much as possible to prevent problems with water drainage. He said that his neighbor built several retaining walls, stepping the grade down at considerable expense, and that the only way he could build his house without the variance would be to build a foundation on top of another foundation which is very expensive. Mr. Chris Jennings from Jennings Construction, Mr. Harper's contractor, came to the podium to speak in favor of the variance. He explained the difficulty and expense in dealing with a building site with this steep of a grade and the potential for water damage, and stated that he estimated the additional cost to the applicant to be $18,000 if the variance was not granted. There were no other questions from the Board and no one else present to speak for or against the variance. Upon a motion made by Mr. Larrick to approve the granting of a 10 -foot variance rather than 15 feet, and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, Variance #018-96 was unanimously approved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve Variance Application #018-96 of Mr. Anthony Harper as amended for a 10 -foot front setback variance. Variance Application #017-96 of Glaize & Brothers for a variance for a 35 -foot reduction in the zoning district buffer distance requirement (from 50' to IT), and a variance waiving all screening requirements. Both variances are for a proposed travel agency business. The property is located at 133 Premier Place, lot #3; is zoned B2 (Business General) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64 -A -9D in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy presented the application and gave background information on the request. He showed colored photos of the location and gave an overview of the variance request. Staff is recommending denial of both variance requests. Mr. Stephen Gyurisin, representative for G. W. Clifford & Associates, came to the podium and presented an exhibit of the property. He gave background information on the project. a subdivision which �,Nas built back in the -80's. and stated that many improvements have been made to Premier Place Road since the Rt. 5221 impro%ements so that it may become part of the State system. He said that the building of the travel agency is crucial to the road becoming part of the State system because VDOT requires at least three buildings, or three occupied structures, be on the road. He cited the odd shape of the parcel as one of the hardships and reasons for asking for the variance. Mr. Gyurisin pointed out on the exhibit of the site the drainage way to the east, the gas easement along the property line by the church, and pointed out the line of trees that already exists. He also mentioned that the topographical condition of the lot, a slope of eight to 10 feet, was another reason for the variance request. He brought to the Board's attention a letter received by the Planning Department from the Calvary Church of the Brethren which stated that they had no objection to the request for a variance and would, in fact, welcome the improvement of the property. Mr. Gyurisin brought up the fact that the buffers are in mixed zoning areas but do not take into account the uses. Mr. Larrick asked for clarification of the proposed building area on the site plan, and asked why the building could not be built within that area. Mr. Gyurisin replied that an extensive amount of time had been spent looking at alternatives for placement of the building but that what they were presenting was the best location. Discussion followed on the size of the proposed building, the fact that the entrance was already in place, placement of the parking and the handicap access, the drainage easement, what can go in the active and inactive portions of the buffer, location of the flood plain, and the fact that the owners have gone to great expense so far to get to the site plan to this point. Further deliberation on the landscape screening, residential buffer requirements, number of trees required, and concerns by the applicant regarding the wooden fence requirement took place. Dennis Williams, owner of the property, spoke on behalf of the variance. He pointed out that if you place the building too close to the existing tree line, you will disturb the roots. Mary June Williams, co-owner of the property, spoke in favor of the application. She stated that they have a contract on the lot at 133 Premier Place and believed that they were doing everything according to what they had been told in order to build a residence and a travel agency on that site. She also presented pictures of the drainage area and the existing tree line. Chairman Sempeles called for anyone else in favor of the variance to come to the podium. Mr. Jim Petrie, representative for Glaize& Brothers, said that he had been given conflicting stories by the County. He said he was told that the property was zoned one way when in fact it was zoned something else, and that he had spent a considerable amount of money putting in curb and gutter. He stated that if the property was zoned according to use, there would be no buffer requirements. Clarence Davis, Jr., Pastor of Calvary Church, spoke in favor of the variance stating that the lot had been vandalized in the past and was currently being used for skateboarding and loitering. He felt that developing the site would eliminate many of the problems they were experiencing. He told the Board that he was satisfied with the present buffering but that when the parking lot was constructed, it would be nice if there was more natural buffering in place. There was no one else to speak for or against the variance. 5 A recommendation for a motion was made by Mr. Larrick to deny the request for a waiver of the full -screen requirements, and amend the request to approve a reduction in the buffer and screening requirements to the provision of landscape screening. After some discussion on the possibilities of reducing the 35' reduction in the zoning district buffer distance (from 50' to 15') request, it was agreed to accept a reduction in the buffer distance requirement to 30' (from 50' to 20'). The Board and the applicant agreed with the amended request, and for clarity's sake, the motion was made in two parts as follows: Upon motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the request for a complete waiver of the full -screen requirements was unanimously denied. Upon motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the request was amended to allow a 30' variance from the zoning district buffer distance requirements, and a reduction from the full screen requirements, provided that the applicant complies with the landscape screening requirements. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve Variance Application #016-96 of Glaize and Brothers as amended for a 30' variance from the zoning district buffer distance requirements, and a reduction from the full screen requirements, provided that the applicant complies with the landscape screening requirements. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman Carol 1. Gordon, Secretary BZA REVIEW DATE: 11/19/96 VARIANCE #019-96 HARRY JAMES MICHAEL LOCATION: The property is located approximately three miles west of the Winchester Medical Center in Layside Estates at the.intersection of Layside Drive and Sawyer Road (Lot #9). Layside Estates is located off Route 803, Round Hill Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 51-A-130 (Lot 9) PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & SE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential VARIANCE: A right side yard variance of 20' and left side yard variance of 20' for construction of a single-family residence REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant cites the exceptional narrowness, steep slope and drainage easement and deep gully of lot. (See attached letter from applicant.) STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district, the front setback for a principle structure is 60'. This front setback is from any road right-of-way that adjoins a property. Road right-of-ways run along three sides of Mr. Michael's property; therefore, each of these three sides of the property are required to have a 60' front setback. Mr. Michael's lot is of an unusual shape and is exceptionally narrow. The setbacks, and the shape of the lot, leave a buildable area that is extremely small. The 20' variances would place the structure 40' from Layside Drive and 40' from the Sawyer Lane right-of- way. In addition. the eastern portion of Mr. Michael's lot is the only area of the lot that can be deemed buildable as the western portion contains varied topography including steep slopes and deep drainage gullies. Harry J. Michael Variance 9019-96 Page 2 November 6, 1996 The Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-495(2)(a) states that no variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds that strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation. Staff believes that granting this variance would be appropriate as a demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation does exist. This parcel cannot be developed for residential purposes. Also, the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the vicinity and the granting of the variance will not be of detriment to adjacent property and will not change the character of the district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1 -ii- h kcr'c\n coNuIe\rc \,i it key az k VARIANCE ,#019-96 PIN: 51—A--130 Harry J. Michael BY mc -7r 7 1. The applicant is the owner _(� other. (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different. NAME: N14R2 TAMS k 1C94Z-L- NAME • ADDRESS 55-7 T�.Sc4tu'l 1(r} 4� fts ADDRESS : c+4PraLes T ��, , v�ti a ►� ov v TELEPHONE: 36q- 7a.s-- 3335 TELEPHONE: `cy 9W 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 3 M1 6S Wes -7 o �— F NIEDICt�L LEn,` -2 oiv oLD 2T So TL 2 N; L. E i T a (J7o VfflEty.6 L-A q 51 D E �fc C0P_n!451/— o F SALO y 6-7Z 12oA- 04 -onl 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of / 35 , c feet and consists of •3 , p acres . (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by :��177c.s 44c#,4,11 as evidenced by deed from W c`e�� +k � LAv recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. ; on page -� of the deed books of the Clerk or the Court for FYedeZzdk County. Attach a copy of the deed. page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: arfc,-e L. 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 51-- 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of' -the property is: Il . c4A) 7- 10. 10. Adjoining Property: SE ZONING North c $ East South West 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.51 rear yard variance for an attached two car garage.") 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto 13. Additional comments,,if .7 Page 3 of 5 If 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if.necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: Please list com late 14- d_icit property identification numbed NAME Address 343 G� SiDE �i2it1� VIJrrJc#�EsTC2, �� a�G�O� Rb�E�2i- �L�eIG Property ID#Sl Coo—:1OQOZ-oco� Address 3 6L AJ` I:oB= i2 Cr2�AmE� 7T Property ID# 57 �Q` - 066-:2-0007 Address n:: M ItiS RIAlE W1AJCH ,f AP 14 i'l'l S a-L6D3 Property ID# '5� 0 - - O 2 - 0,003 Address -PQ Bok AS, d WU hic4tsre2 Vfi ZBUy I -Sc rrZyE Property ID# Address 34LA Sipa 2)p -lug W/,0C,# Src4 Ifirl-o %D Property D#24kl Address t,i.�i �I Cites i V a 6Q Property ID# - I �- 'Property Ir Address Property ID Address -Property ID -Address -Property ID; -Address Property IDA tkxts E R 5 -7A Acaes,. 'V 1-71 000 100' 50' ' 100', S CA.L £ /N f. E£r IT D 10 401 9 _R� ` �8' a I E 125. 4 7 "V60 24� 36 N57 O4� 10 153' % £ N 1.35.0' !62 6 8p.�i-mac".. LO r 9 O / JI T' NTNG Uj ��� o R� t L 0a? • Yy Z i 3 o t`A � 9 � FP' , 65.6'\�'lt'_/r 13',0 3 AWL S .34 z 36 5 R,0 NO. —6 S47,0.x,W 5'5* •059 �y - 4 60 �GIT LOT M5 Lor NO. 7. 9 8, 000 The above tract of land, located about. 4 miles West of Winchester, a sh •t. dis t ance South of V.S. Highway No. 50, and si tua t e in Back Creek Magi.s teals 1 District; F -p -d A* -i rk County. VirB.nia , is bounded as follows: f u S r R r n t � I a ry Ana _ � Gd—,* 0, a ,, <' —n ,4 �-, � - —'r Page 5 of 5 VARIANCE~` I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and petition, the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to grant a variance to the terms of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions for the variance required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICAXDATE i SIGNATURE OF OWNER / DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: - DATE- APPROVAL DENIAL SIGNED: l� J BZA CHAIRMAN DATE: r.� October 22, 1996 Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, `✓A 22601 Dear Sirs: This letter is in regard to the setbacks on Lot #9, Layside Estates. In 1969 my wife and I purchased this lot with the intention of building our retirement home there. Since I was born and raised in Frederick County, I had hoped to spend my last days there. At the time of purchase, we told the real estate agent and developer we would not be building until we retired. One question we asked him was, would the ordinances, perks and setbacks remain the same. He assured us that they would, that the deed was being recorded at the courthouse through a lawyer's office-. This year we decided to start construction. I staked the lot for the house location in order to know where to place the septic tank and drainfill. The inspector approved the perk and the location of the septic tank and drain field in accordance with where I had staked the house. Then I discovered the setbacks had been changed from 35 feet to 60 feet. Since then my stomach has been upset and I am unable to sleep at night. I lost a good paying job through downsizing two years ago at age 54, and also lost my health. Since then I cannot handle stress. Because of the shape and exceptional narrowness of the land, the only site to build is where the house is drawn on the attached plot. Due to soil conditions and lay of the land, the septic tank and drain pipes have to be located in the area marked on the plot. The area up the mountain toward Lot 9A is unsuitable for either a house or septic because of runoff and steep slope. In addition, from this point on to the Lot 9A Property line there is a 20 foot drainage easement and a deep gully which is also sloped downhill. Therefore, gentlemen, I pray thee you would have mercy on my wife and I and grant us the variance proposed and eliminate my anxiety and undue stress. Sincerely, Harry James Michael - 557 Tusca wi l l a Hills Charles Town, WV 25414