BZA 04-15-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
April 15, 1997
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Minutes of March 18, 1997
3:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2) Variance Application #005-97 of Devon Willett for a 5' side yard setback variance
for an addition to an existing structure. The property is located at 201 Stonecrest
Court and is zoned RA (Rural Areas). The site is identified with Property
Identification Number 43-18-5 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
3) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street,
Winchester, Virginia, on March 18, 1997.
PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr -,Vice
Chairman, Gainesboro District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Ralph M.
Wakeman, Shawnee District; and Harold Nichols, Opequon District.
STAFF
PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; and Carol
Cameron, Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997
Upon motion made by Mr. Wakeman and seconded by Mr. Larrick, the minutes of
February 18, 1997 were unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING (3:35 p.m.)
Variance Application #004-97 of Lou Ann J. Thompson for a 35' front yard setback variance
for a detached garage. The property is located at 160 Headley Road and is zoned RA (Rural
Areas). The site is identified with Property Identification Number 92 -A -17A in the Opequon
Magisterial District.
ACTION - APPROVED
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy presented the application and gave background information on the
request. He showed colored photographs of the building site and referenced a letter from the
applicant which was included in the agenda package. He told the board that the reason they could
2
see the construction in the photographs was because the building inspectors noticed that
construction was taking place and a building permit had not been obtained. A stop -work order
was then issued. ivir. Ruddy stated that the staff recommendation for this variance was for denial
as a demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation does not exist.
Chairman Sempeles asked for the applicant to come to the podium and state her
name.
Lou Ann Thompson, applicant, came to the podium and told the board that she
needed more room for storage. She said she didn't realize she needed a building permit to build
onto a personal residence but as soon as she was notified, she obtained one. That was when she
was made aware of the setback situation and that is why she applied for a variance.
Discussion followed on whether the adjoining property owners were relatives,
whether there was anywhere else to put the garage, how big the garage would be and how far
would it be from the house. Mr. Sempeles asked Ms. Thompson why the garage could not be
built attached to the house. She replied that there are two large windows on that side of the
house and they did not want to cover them up. Further discussion followed on whether there was
a concrete foundation there now (there is not), and whether Ms. Thompson plans to add an attic
(she has no plans to do so at this time).
Chairman Sempeles questioned the applicant again on the issue of not having a
building permit and Ms. Thompson repeated her previous explanation on what had transpired.
There were no other questions from the Board, and no one was present to speak
against the variance request. A woman sitting with the applicant spoke up to say she was in favor
of the application but declined to come to the podium or to state her name.
On a motion made by Mr. Nichols and seconded by Mr. Rinker, a motion to
approve the application as presented was passed by unanimous vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby
approve Variance Application #004-97 of Lou Ann J. Thompson for a 35' front yard
setback variance for a detached garage.
Variance Application #003-97 of Carroll Construction Co. for a 23.1' side yard (north) and
23.4' side yard (south) variance for additions to the existing structure. The property is located
at 1252 Apple Pie Ridge Road (Cara A. Lewin residence) and is zoned RA (Rural Areas). The
3
site is identified with Property Identification Number 42-A-354 in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District.
ACTION - APPROVED
Mr. Ruddy presented the application and gave background information on the
request. The applicant, Carroll Construction Company, is requesting the variance on behalf of the
owner, Cara Ann Lewin. Mr. Ruddy showed colored photographs of the proposed building site
and said that staff is recommending denial as a demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation
does not exist.
Mr. Tucker Conaboy, representative for Carroll Construction Company, came to
the podium to speak in favor of the application. Mr. Conaboy explained that the applicant wishes
to add a master bedroom and a kitchen to upgrade the existing structure.
Discussion followed on what the size of the additions would be, where the septic
field is located and whether the septic would be sufficient to accommodate the new construction.
Mr. Conaboy stated that the septic system was installed in 1964 to support a four-bedroom home
and since the house has only two bedrooms, it should be adequate. A questioned was raised
regarding the driveway on the plat which appears to extend into the adjoining property's lot. Mr.
Conaboy stated that this was revealed on a recent survey and since the driveway is gravel, it could
be easily removed if necessary.
Further questions followed regarding the surrounding lots and the current setback
conditions governing new construction, whether the applicant would consider reducing the size
of the additions if required, what year the lots were created, when did the zoning rules come into
effect, and whether a consideration had been made to approach the neighbor about selling part
of his land. Mr. Ruddy noted for the Board's information that if the same lots were purchased
today under the current Zoning Ordinance guidelines, they could not be built upon without
obtaining a variance. The residence and lot in question is considered legally nonconforming.
Harry C. Turner, Jr., an adjoining property owner, came to the podium and gave
background information on the lots which he says were created from what used to be a peach
orchard. He stated that his sister-in-law also owns adjoining land and knows for a fact that she
is not interested in selling. Mr. Turner told the Board that he has no qualms about additions being
built onto his neighbor's house; he just wants to make sure that there are no junk cars stored on
the property which has occurred in the past.
Mr. Rinker asked Mr. Turner if the driveway situation was a problem and he
replied that it was not a problem as long as the owners keep the grass mowed. Further discussion
followed on right-of-ways and property lines.
Mr. Larrick suggested amending the variance requests rather than giving carte
4
blanche approval. Upon a motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the first
portion (north side) of Variance Request #003-97 of Carroll Construction Company was
approved as amended from 23.1' to 2 1. 1 (take two feet off) by unanimous vote.
On another motion by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the second
portion (south side) of the Variance Request #003-97 of Carroll Construction Company was
approved as amended from 23.4' to 22.4' by unanimous vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby
approve Variance Application #003-97 of Carroll Construction Company as amended for
a 21.1' side yard (north) and 22.4' side yard (south) variance for additions to the existing
structure.
Variance Application #002-97 of CFJ Properties (Flying J) for a height variance of 34' and
a size variance of 709.63 square feet for a business sign within the Interstate Area Overlay
District. The property is located at 1530 Rest Church Road and is zoned B3 (Industrial
Transition) District and IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. The site is identified with
Property Identification Number 33-9-1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION - DENIED
Mr. Ruddy briefed the Board on the applicant's request. Prior to this meeting, a
van trip was taken to the proposed sign site so the Board members could get a better idea of
exactly what the applicant was proposing and where it would be. Several members of the press
were also present on this trip. Staff is recommending denial for three reasons: 1) A demonstrable
hardship clearly does not exist and the applicant is not limited to choice of location; 2) a sign
constructed in compliance with zoning ordinance regulations would have excellent visibility in
both directions along Interstate 81; and 3) a sign of the magnitude proposed would be of
detriment to adjacent properties, and the character of the district would be substantially changed
if this variance request was approved.
Mr. Ruddy introduced Evan Wyatt to briefly explain how the IA (Interstate Area
Overlay) District was established. Mr. Wyatt, Deputy Director for the Frederick County Planning
Department, gave an overview of the process involved in developing the current sign regulations
in the IA District. In particular, how the regulations pertaining to the exit 323 interchange were
established. He noted that since the Board of Supervisors adopted this ordinance in May of 1995,
this was the first application that has come in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Ruddy directed the attention of the Board to a copy of a letter which was
received from the Chamber of Commerce in regard to the Flying J application, and provided a
copy to the applicant.
5
Mr. Craig Call, Community Liaison for Flying J, Inc. requested a copy of the letter
which was received from the Chamber of Commerce in regard to this variance request. He
passed out pictures which depicted the types of buildings and signage their company uses. Mr.
Call explained that the reason they were requesting such a large sign is that the sign needs to have
three identities: The Flying J Travel Plaza; the price of fuel; and the Country Market Restaurant.
He also discussed the issues of topography, sightability from the interstate from the north and
south lanes, potential blocking of the sign by trees, comparison of similar signs in Wytheville and
Caroline County, gross receipt taxes and the estimation of earning approximately $100,000 in
these taxes from the development of Flying J at the proposed interchange. Mr. Call continued
his presentation by pointing out that the travel plaza is right on the state line and would be the
first thing people see when they enter Virginia.
Mr. Lacrick brought up the question of the primary use question as it pertains to
the ordinance allowing signage for each established primary use. Mr. Wyatt clarified the
interpretation of the term `primary use' and explained the concept of `co -branding.'
Chairman Sempeles asked about the Flying J signs in Wytheville and Caroline
County. Mr. Call said the sign was approved in Wytheville but not Caroline County.
Further discussion followed on whether different services could share a pole sign,
the allowable sign size in the B3 district, who owns the operation, whether the other operations
in Virginia have a sign of the proposed magnitude, and whether there would be road signs along
I-81 advertising the location of the franchise.
Mr. Rinker asked if they would be putting signs on the State -provided road signs
along I-81 for food, gas, etc., so they would have additional visibility at those points. Mr. Call
replied that they would. Mr. Ruddy added that those signs were located some distance away
from the exits.
Chairman Sempeles asked if the reduced sign size in Caroline County had reduced
their business, and Mr. Call replied that it most definitely had, by an estimation of 20% to 25%
reduction. Mr. Call also noted that the sign is located at an established interchange area where
several competitors are located. He pointed out that the sign program is attempting to bring in
vacationing families and RV traffic because the professional truck drivers already know where
they are. In answer to a question from Mr. Rinker, Mr. Call said that the next closest sign is in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and measures 150 square feet.
Mr. Henry Buettner, one of the partners in the Rainbow Group (which sold the
property to Flying J) spoke in favor of the request. He pointed out that a sign the size that Flying
J is proposing is preferable to five different signs advertising five different businesses. He stated
that he did not believe the request was out of order; in fact, one large sign would eliminate sign
proliferation on the 25 -acre site. He also spoke of the financial benefits to the County by a
business of this size.
6
Questions and answers followed on the motel/hotel aspect of the Flying J
franchise. Mr. Ruddy clarified the ordinance in regard to animated signs.
Mr. Ron Simkhovitch, also of the Rainbow Group, spoke in favor of the request.
He stated that he is in the trucking business and that his trucks fuel 85% of the time at Flying J's.
He felt that the main reason for approving the sign was the need to see ahead of time that the exit
for Flying J was coming up.
Mr. Ken Martin, who works for Federal Signs (Flying J's sign contractors), spoke
in favor of the request. He explained through photographs the reasoning for the size and
placement of the sign and how topography is also an issue. He explained that `in this case, if you
were to look at the overpass and to the left, you see the Exxon sign and on the right side, headed
southbound, the Flying J sign, because of the necessity to be back from the overpass, even if it
were to be at the same height as the Exxon sign, it would appear to be lower because it's farther
in the background than the Exxon sign.'
Chairman Sempeles asked if you were going south, you would not see the sign?
Mr. Martin said that if you were headed south, because of the position of the sign and the
orchard, it would be too low. He said that you might get a peek at the top of the sign, and you
would not even get the Flying J (the top cabinet) visible, headed south.
Mr. Larrick asked if it was because of the orchard or the overpass; Mr. Martin
replied that it was because of both. He said they had experimented with different areas of the
property, tried to move it back, move it closer to the highway.
Mr. Larrick questioned why the sign couldn't be positioned the same way the
Exxon sign was (level with the overpass) and Mr. Martin replied that they had tried that scenario
with a crane truck and began to lose visibility from the northbound lanes. After a question from
Mr. Larrick on the height from the ground of the Exxon sign at the northbound exit (60 or 70 feet
from the ground?), Mr. Ruddy clarified that it was 60 feet. Mr. Martin said that every step you
take forward northbound takes you a step farther away from that visibility.
Mr. Ruddy also pointed out that in the IA, the minimum distance from the bottom
of the message board to the ground is 25 feet. Mr. Martin emphasized that every variable
allowed by the County code had been attempted and that even though a sign that size would add
considerable expense, they felt they had reached the only feasible solution.
Discussion followed on various possibilities for placement, such as the side-by-side
approach that the City [of Winchester] had done with Budgetel Inn and the Bob Evans
Restaurant.
Chairman Sempeles asked about the possibility of using billboard advertising along
the interstate. Mr. Call replied that billboard advertising has been used when they felt it was
effective but he believed that having the large sign, in conjunction with seeing the outline of the
actual building, is far more effective.
7
Mr. Nichols asked the applicants, and those speaking in favor of the variance, how
they would like to see a sign of that magnitude from their picture window. All those responding
did not feel that it would be a detriment, and would be better than seeing several signs for each
business within the travel plaza.
Mr. Ruddy again clarified a question on why animated signs are not allowed in the
ordinance by stating there was a safety concern presented by moving signs being a distraction to
motorists.
There were no other questions nor anyone else present to speak for or against the
variance. Mr. Ruddy suggested to the Board that they consider the variance request as two
separate issues --height and size.
Upon a motion made by Mr. Larrick to deny the specific square footage portion
of the request and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the 709.63 square -foot size variance of Variance
#002-97 was unanimously denied.
Mr. Call asked if they would be restricted to 300 feet or 500 feet since it is for
more than one use; Mr. Ruddy replied it would be 300 feet as the Flying J travel plaza is
considered a primary use.
Mr. Larrick suggested a discussion on the height portion of the variance. Mr.
Ruddy told the Board that a side-by-side sign is a possibility which would maintain a visible height
as admitted previously by the applicants, and would be beneath the height limit.
Upon motion made by Mr. Larrick to deny the height portion of the request and
seconded by Mr. Nichols, the 34 -foot height variance of Variance #002-97 was denied by the
following majority vote:
AYES (votes to deny the height variance): Chairman Sempeles, Mr. Larrick and
Mr. Nichols;
NO (votes against the motion to deny the height variance): Mr. Rinker and
Mr. Wakeman.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals
does hereby deny Variance Application #002-97 of CFJ Properties (Flying J) for a height
variance of 34' and a size variance of 709.63 square feet for a business sign within the
Interstate Area Overlay District.
OTHER BUSINESS
8
Mr. Ruddy told the Board that on May 16, the Regional Association of Zoning
Officials are sponsoring a BZA Training Session. He estimates that approximately 50 people
will be there from various localities and invited anyone interested in attending to let him know.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman
Carol I. Cameron, Secretary
•
J
•
BZA REVIEW DATE: 4/15/97
VARIANCE #005-97
DEVON WILLETT
LOCATION: The property is located at 201 Stonecrest Court.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43-18-5
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential
Performance) Districts; Land use - Residential
VARIANCE: A 5' side yard variance to allow for construction of an addition
REASON FOR VARIANCE: Applicant states "adding bathroom due to full disability of owner."
STAFF COMMENTS:
Within the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district, the minimum side yard setback for a principle structure
is 50' when the property is adjoining land used for residential purposes. The applicant is requesting
a 5' variance to place an addition onto the side of the principle structure. This would locate the
structure 45' away from the adjoining property line.
The house is located in the Stonewall Estates subdivision on a five -acre lot. The applicant is in no
way limited to choice of location. It would be more than feasible to place the addition to the rear of
the property in compliance with zoning ordinance requirements.
On February 28. 1997, the applicant applied for a building permit for the addition. At this time, he
was made aware that a 50' setback had to be maintained on the side of the property. Because the
measurements on the plans did not meet this requirement, the building permit was not issued.
Subsequently, on March 19, 1997, the building official placed a stop work order on the building
addition. It was apparent that the applicant had ignored the requirement and had proceeded with
construction of the addition.
Devon Willett - Variance 4005-97
Page 2
April 7, 1997
In this case, strict application of the zoning ordinance does not prohibit the use of the property for
residential purposes. The principal use of the property is residential. 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 inappropriate as a demonstrable hardship approaching
confiscation does not exist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
File K.`,N'P\CMN\CONIMENTS'X%ILLETTBZA
VARIANCE #005-97 7 PIN: 43-18-5
Devon Willett
page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR - PLEASE PRINT
1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one)
2. APPLICANT:
NAME:1)VcJ c,N IM t �lc
ADDRESS a b 1 S -6,J
TELEPHONE: St1
e 1,_
OCCUPANT: (if different)'
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at
(give
exact directions and include
States
Route numbers):
1
4. The property has a road frontage of 75 L feet and a depth
of feet and consists of acres. (please be
exact)
5. The property is owned by , C 1
as evidenced by deed from recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. C% on page 0 y of the deed
books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach
a copy of the deed.
page 2 of 5
6. Magisterial District: � AAUlf,) VZa
7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: `7 .3
8. The existing zoning of the property is: 1_, A-
9. The existing use of the property is:,
10. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North ,
East �� Y
South
r /P
West
11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type.
(For example: "A 3.5' 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
C C It " V C- K-
13. Additional comments, if any
Page 3 of 5
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 fete 14 -
digit Rroperty identification number)
NAME T
Addres
�Ylc�go e R�� Proper
Kll 'I rproper
-res
,w ee,oh�� J�
0��, w c
1F'fty-wSGk h)enZ z 1LAJ
q4 G�
?enr_s6 1-) ) �•��
'F PP; PP;-Jtk_, A;A,P
&r'k i
t
_'Uws �� :
Aaares
-Proper
Addres
Proper•
fdares
Propez
Addres
Proper
Addres
Proper
Addres
Proper-
Addres;
-Properl
-Addres:
-Properi
Addres;
S
n
y3,
2 '
ty ID#
s
ty ID#
3
2 4C,
0
~
s ,
'`�`_
ty ID#
y
Z
s
:'y ID#
--y
3
:y ID#
,�
Y /
y ID#
Page 4 of 5
15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page).
Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property,
including measurements to all property lines and to the
nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include
any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this
application.
Adjoining Property YOUR PROPERTY A*ininq Property
X,
Y
syr /
�•J J
r
a_
Pmperty Line i
----------- --------=Cuter of Rood -------
Road
OW THESE MEASUREMENTS
X,
Y
1J
�•J J
Page 5 of 5
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE #__0L5—
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 APPLIC
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
(if other than appl
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
!E
ME
31,� 6 /c? �
_dL I.
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION:
` - DATE -
I I APPROVAL
DENIAL SIGNED:
BZA CHAIRMAN
DATE:
EpLTN�„s '4
� x
o� yf
r+
S.COBS�
9
CERTIFICATE No
L
47B
CARRINGTON S. COBBS
_ CERTIFICO SURVEYOR
_ - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
F'�� !00.00 f•�.
0 13� o
4t i 1 N
N
%2vS SELL 5 -�N2�iD/.SF_ SuBD • �
3 1 o sEC 7 -/OV z
a IQ
4-
3 h z w
h
JU• 35 Do zo _ _ 3441, 97'
sJEE '%rsEr " Fom 119t l
Lo% 5 �k/�LLi�1G 'DETiQ/LS
o,jva
5:
o o o �Ci2ES
E5
s �`o50' 0 4 's'.� t9
E
i
� F
7//E <lsot/E SuQD/V/Slo�t) /5
REcoRDEL JAI �•8.708/�.900, '7'''�
Hh
-F->•C 147
sNo;w/N� f�avS�.Loc,g7'jo/f . SUl2t/e
scRc� /oo
= NEREBy G'E,2?'!FY 'iNfIT o,V '7'f(.E ggoVE n/rryE 3
o�P.eE.vt / s em s syo N f IE.eEo.J MA 714.47