BZA 11-18-97 Meeting Agenda3:25 p.m.
1)
2)
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
Minutes of October 21, 1997
November 18, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
Old Business - Application Tabled from October 21, 1997 Meeting
Variance Application #015-97 of Lloyd and Gail Winters for a five-foot side yard
setback variance for an addition to existing detached garage. The property is located
at 253 Ruebuck Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 23-2-1-41
in the Stonewall 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 October 21, 1997.
PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr.,Vice Chairman,
Gainesboro District; and Ralph M. Wakeman, Shawnee District; Dudley Rinker, Back
Creek District
ABSENT: Harold Nichols, Opequon District
STAFF
PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II; Carol Cameron, Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
On a motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the minutes for the
September 16, 1997 meeting were approved as presented by the following vote:
YES (to approve the minutes): Mr. Larrick and Mr. Wakeman
ABSTAINED: Chairman Sempeles and Mr. Rinker
PUBLIC HEARING (3:35 p.m.)
Variance Application #015-97 of Lloyd and Gail Winters for a five foot side yard setback variance
for an addition to existing detached garage. The property is located at 253 Ruebuck Road, and is
identified with Property Identification Number 23-2-1-41 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION - TABLED TO THE NOVEMBER 18, 1997 MEETING
2
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy presented the background information on the variance request. Staff
recommends denial of the 5 -foot side yard setback variance as strict application of the ordinance would
not produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation. Mr. Ruddy also presented photographs of
the property which show the residence and the garage.
Chairman Sempeles asked for anyone in favor of the variance to come to the podium.
Mr. Lloyd Clayton Winters, applicant, came forward to speak. He stated that he wanted
to add onto the current structure rather than build a new structure for additional storage space.
Mr. Larrick asked Mr. Winters how long he had lived in the house and about the survey
which was done in 1991. Mr. Winters replied that he has lived there since September 1985, and that the
survey was done when he added an addition to the house and to the back of the garage.
Mr. Rinker asked about the two driveways, one on each side of the house. Mr. Winters
replied that one serviced the kitchen side and one services the garage itself. He said he knew he
couldn't do anything on that side because it is right on the property line.
Mr. Rinker asked Mr. Ruddy if this was what was referred to as a "pipe stem" lot. Mr.
Ruddy stated that this was not a traditional pipe stem lot.
Mr. Winters added that he has already checked with his neighbor and he has no problem
with the addition.
Chairman Sempeles asked if any other houses had two -car garages, and Mr. Winters
replied that he did not think so, unless they were down past him. However, two other houses had
carports.
Mr. Winters also wanted to point out that other lots down below him were zoned "R"
[meaning "RP"] when it was zoned, even though the other lots are the same as his, so their setbacks are
only five feet. There are approximately 20 lots like that.
Chairman Sempeles asked if there were any problems in that area when he built the last
garage addition, how many children the applicant had, whether it was one or two-story garage, and
whether it was brick or wooden. He also asked how many bedrooms the residence has.
Mr. Rinker asked whether the garage door faced east and whether this was the original
entrance. Mr. Winters said that originally the garage door was on the north side but when he bought
the property, the previous owner had already stopped using it and had sodded and grassed the drive -
around area. He said he wants to take that door off and use it on the new addition, if approved.
3
Further discussion followed regarding why the garage could not be added onto on the
back due to the presence of the drainfield and trees in the back. The distribution box is located right
off the corner of the garage, on the south side.
There was no one else to speak for or against the variance request.
Mr. Larrick stated that he did not see how the Board could approve this request within
the guidelines of the Code of Virginia.
Chairman Sempeles said that he did not see a problem with approving the variance as
presented, as many other similar cases have been approved in the past.
Mr. Ruddy added that if the main purpose is to create a two -car garage, by going 15 feet
from the property line, he could add an additional nine feet. With some structural work, a double -wide
door could be installed, thereby creating a 9'x 34' storage space. Mr. Winters did not feel this would
work, as the wall in question is a weight-bearing wall.
Chairman Sempeles again pointed out that they [the Board] had approved a similar case
a few years ago involving a six-foot variance. Mr. Ruddy reminded the chairman that each case should
be judged on its own individual merits.
Mr. Wakeman moved for approval of the variance request. Mr. Rinker asked for time
to look through the Code book for grounds of approval.
Mr. Rinker asked the applicant if the residence next door was close to the line, and if the
house sits back off the road. Mr. Winters said that his neighbor is about 25 feet from the line, and that
the house sits a little bit closer to the road than his,
Discussion ensued on the interpretation of the Code. Chairman Sempeles reminded the
Board that there was still a motion on the floor. The motion failed due to a tie vote as follows:
AYES (yes to grant the 5' setback variance): Chairman Sempeles and Mr. Wakeman
NO (against the 5' setback variance): Mr. Larrick and Mr. Rinker.
Mr. Larrick moved to table the application to on or before November 20, 1997, to give
the applicant the benefit of having all of the Board members present. This may or may not result in a
favorable decision for the applicant. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
0
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman
Carol I. Cameron, Secretary
\AMINUTES\1997\0C1? 1,BZA
Ll
0
0
BZA REVIEW DATE: 10/21/97;11/18/97
VARIANCE #015-97
LLOYD & GAIL WINTERS
LOCATION: The property is located at 253 Ruebuck Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 23-2-1-41
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use -
Residential and Agricultural
VARIANCE: A five-foot side yard setback variance for addition to existing detached garage.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states variance is being sought due to the narrowness
to the south of the existing garage.
STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district, the minimum setback for an
accessory structure is 15'. The applicant is proposing to build an addition to an existing accessory
structure that would place the accessory structure 10' from the adjoining property line. This would
require a 5' side yard variance.
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. Furthermore, it would appear
that there is sufficient space on the property to locate the addition in conformance with the setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 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
Lloyd & Gail Winters, Variance #015-97
Page 2
November 12, 1997
SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 21, 1997 MEETING:
At their 10/21/97 meeting, the Board of Zoning Appeals made a motion to approve this variance
request. The motion resulted in a tied vote (2-2). Therefore, this motion failed and cannot be
reconsidered. Upon a subsequent motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the
variance application was tabled. The Board was of the opinion that by tabling the motion until the
next meeting, the applicant would have the benefit of all five members of the Board being present.
This may result in the decision being a favorable one for the applicant. The applicant was in favor of
tabling the application until the next meeting.
O:\AGENDAS\BZA\COMMENTS\W INTERS_ BZA
Zoning Legend Variance #015-97
RA Lloyd & Gail Winters
RP
PIN: 23-2-1-41
Frederick County Planning & Development 10-8-97
Pags z of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VTRCINIA
1. The applicant is the owner V/" other . (Check one)
2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different)
NAME: e% ' ` .v S NAME:
ADDRESS S'3 ���`w� Z -/ADDRESS:
--r-
TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include
State Route numbers):
4. The property has a road frontage of �%G°'��feet and a depth
of S -->Z' feet and consists of 37 c o -r-� (please be
-c
exact) '
�
5 . The property is owned by
as evidenced by deed from _ ,,�„� l�J�1�C, recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. a7 5 on page S 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:
7.
14 -Digit Property Identification No.:
8.
The existing zoning of the property
is: R A
9.
The existing use of the property is:
-7
k z7cIIUI�IL -IL _
10.
Adjoining Property:
lISf
QNTNG
North PS icrk'��
' ` A
East
South
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
) -1116l cc i i 41,v
13.
13. Additional comments, if any
i
7 G1 24 e L!CiS�in �S
I,-
PMW 3 d
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 wiU be notifd by mail of this application:
Address
Property ID# 7 3 -
NAME G lc�-rl� LCvYY y Address c"% 1201
Property ID# 2-3- '2-( — c�- - Gam'-' -� , V'4 Z 2 2
NAME Address /0,ZCom.(.
Property ID# 2 3 — 3 — Z — c�� G�✓� �- c�+fq ti �{ Z Z p
NAI' > c.� �a.l_L .f> y'r .,� �a� 4 Address
Property M# Z - L4 — j Z
NAME
Property ID#
NAME
Property ID#
NAME
Propertv ID#
NAME
Properry ID#
NAME
Property ID#
NAME
Property IDK
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
Address
r3ws acs
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE # G t Jr
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 teras 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.
/ � 9
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT / -� ATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
(if other than applicant)
BZA PUBLIC HEARII�IG OF
10MV3
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
- DATE -
APPROVAL SIGNED:
DENLAL DATE:
ACTION.
BZA CHAIl2MAN
LJ70t ru Nrr..
77r -g6 -f—
O1 D4
100 O�
Lor .
X000 so.Fr. I
L
dfI
O �O
I / 17
r- -
14 O'
I 0Era7
79.0•
I i •rdRAC£ !Q1'
�I
11. r
I
s
zcr
a
h
1 smvr
I i
r 42.r
X
r
r I
r 75 S.R.L
I 1
r
I r
�I
I I
i
it
I
i I
it
r
>EL oil+ um- uAIE's
�
I
+� S 02V458- E Co.100'
PF
ROUTF 670
45 • R/W
8X770PG1700
I
TH
EDWARD W. DovE >
CERT. No.
54-17-3(A) 964
r Q.
HOUSE L OCA 77ON SUR IEY
LOT 41 sEC770N 1
GORDONDALE
06E17 900"" 415 PACF 415
S717N£WALL 0/57R/cr
fR£O£R/CX C)OUNry; NRCIN/A
ANO ODES NOT NEccEZS3ARll7 D+OfG iE AIIT ENC1/14iAANCL Q1 111E pRPRgOPfRTHE SENFnT
ry FLOOD ZONE: C
TENa LOCAnONS ARE APP"—ATE 0-y -0 00 NOT CEXTTFY AS ro orNER- PANEL: 0075 e
SMP. 043 SUR'," fS NOT TD BE USED FOR THE CmsMCnC" Cr AMI /ptgS
O" ANY
oTNER [UPROVEUENTS. COMMUNITY NO: 51006) DATE: 7/17179
DATE: DEcEme£R 1J• 1991 SCALE: 1--40'
WORK ORDER NO.: 9100)91
rurcl,tlAStK:
OWNER: if1N11:'Rs
JIRCINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY. $C1
This Instrument d wrifing w,4E
d
10 me on the I' _
'r • dfIsM w,th ctr
d acllnowfriq—t th-wo a�rbrefd wea
edm"ted f0 rrmrd,
n