BZA 09-16-97 Meeting Agendar
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
September 16, 1997
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Minutes of August 19, 1997
3:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING
2) Variance Application #013-97 of Tederick/Miller Investments for a 12.2' rear
setback variance for an existing house and attached deck. The property is located at
110 Dots Way, and is identified with Property Identification Number 551-1-3-159A
in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
3) Other
•
i
•
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 August 19, 1997.
PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr.,Vice
Chairman, Gainesboro District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; and Harold
Nichols, Opequon District; Ralph M. Wakeman, Shawnee District
STAFF
PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II; Kris C. Tierney, Planning and Development
Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Carol Cameron, Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 1997
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Larrick, the minutes for
the June 17, 1997 meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING (3:35 p.m.)
Appeal Application #006-97 of CFJ Properties (Flying J), which was tabled at the May 20,
1997 meeting, to appeal the determination made by the Director of Planning and Development
in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance regarding commercial business signs within the IA
(Interstate Area) Overlay District.
Variance Application #007-97 of CFJ Properties (Flying J), which was tabled at the May 20,
1997 meeting, for a 20' sign height variance, and a 198.95 -square -foot sign size variance 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
2
Magisterial District.
ACTION - WITHDRAWN
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy reminded the Board that the first two public hearing items had been
tabled from the previous meeting on May 20, and that if anyone was present to speak for or
against the applications, they should be respected.
Chairman Sempeles called for anyone wishing to speak to come to the podium.
Seeing none, Chairman Sempeles called for a motion.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, withdrawal of
Appeal Application #006-97 and Variance Application 9007-97, both of CFJ Properties, Inc.
(Flying J), as requested by the applicant was accepted.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby
accept withdrawal of Appeal Application 4006-97 and Variance Application #007-97, both
of CFJ Properties, Inc. (Flying J), as requested by the applicant.
Variance #010-97 of W. D. Huffman for Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church for a five
foot rear yard variance for construction of an accessory structure. The property is located at
5754 Cedar Creek Grade and is identified with Property Identification Number 72-A-13 in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION - APPROVED
Mr. Ruddy read the background information on the request and shared
photographs of the proposed building site with the Board. He stated that there were alternative
locations for the picnic shelter which not require a variance, and that staff recommended denial.
Chairman Sempeles called for the applicant to come to the podium.
Mr. Winston Huffman, applicant and representative for the Cedar Creek Primitive
Baptist Church, came forward. He mentioned that he brought two of the ladies of the church
with him. Mr. Huffman stated that this was one of the more historical churches and they did not
want to ruin the appearance of the church. They also wanted to avoid the rock ledges and that
the drainage would be better in the back of the church. In addition, they felt that the incidence
3
of vandalism would be reduced if the shelter were placed in the back of the church.
Mr. Rinker asked about the size of the shelter (25'x 40'), why there were two sets
of stakes shown in the pictures (one set was if the building stays within 15 feet from the boundary
line, and the other was if they move it over five feet), and whether the lot would be leveled out.
Chainnan Sempeles asked if there were any other buildings on the south side on
the farm land; Mr. Huffman replied that there's one 400 yards east of the boundary line that
belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Orndoff.
Mr. Rinker asked about what appeared to be an outcropping [on the south side
of the church where the shelter is going, across the fence line]. Mr. Huffman replied that this
property belongs to the OmdofFs, and that is what they were trying to get five feet closer to. Mr.
Rinker then asked if rods had been driven to see whether there were any rock ledges there, and
Mr. Huffman said he wanted to wait to see where they could build first. Discussion followed on
the probable loss of one or more maples trees.
Chairman Sempeles asked whether the shelter would be enclosed with heat, etc.
Mr. Huffman replied that it would not be enclosed right now, just an open picnic shelter with a
concrete floor.
Chairman Sempeles then asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor
of the variance.
Mr. Larrick asked the two ladies present with Mr. Huffman if he could assume
they were in favor of the variance. They were; however, they did not wish to speak. No one was
present to speak against the variance.
Mr. Wakeman made a motion to approve the variance, and Mr. Rinker offered a
second. Variance Application 4010-97 was unanimously approved.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby
approve Variance Application #010-97 of W. D. Huffman for Cedar Creek Primitive
Baptist Church for a five-foot rear yard variance for construction of an accessory structure.
Variance #011-97 of Federal Sign Company for CFJ Properties (Flying J) for a 26' sign
height variance 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-
El
9-1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION - APPROVED
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy gave the background information on the application, bringing the
Board's attention to a display of pictures, which were provided by the applicant, depicting a
demonstration of sign visibility from Interstate 81. He noted that staff was also present at this
flagging.
Mr. Pat Bucek, representative from Federal Sign Company in Arlington, Texas,
came forward to speak on behalf of the applicant. He noted that in addition to the points already
made, there was an additional safety factor to consider. This involves the time it takes for
vehicles to make the required lane changes, etc. in order to make it to the exit in time.
Mr. Marty Phipps, representative for Flying J out of Utah, came to the podium.
He also wanted to make a point regarding the safety factor involved. He said that if truckers see
the sign at the last minute, they cut over and safety becomes a real big issue.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of using billboard signs, restrictions
by the Highway Beautification Act on the use of billboards, and whether VDOT's signs at the
interchanges would give enough notice. Mr. Phipps stressed that advertisement of their diesel
prices was very important because each time a trucker stops, they are buying 400 gallons of fuel.
Chairman Sempeles asked Mr. Phipps about the sign that was placed by their
company in Caroline County, which is in southern Virginia, and whether the granting of this
variance would lead to signs being higher and higher each time.
Mr. Phipps replied that this would be dependent upon the topography and the
extenuating circumstances of each situation.
Mr. Ruddy interjected that this variance is specific to this location and the height
issue, should another location come up in the future, would be looked at strictly on its own
merits.
Discussion ensued on whether approval of this application would change the
ordinance and whether granting this would lead to other businesses (such as the Exxon station)
to request higher signs.
Mr. Phipps added that another factor in the height of the sign is that when a sign
is too close to the ground, it invites vandalism (such as rocks being thrown at the sign). Also,
their research has shown that not having a sign at a Flying J location can reduce revenue by up
5
to 10%.
Mr. Rinker reminded the Board that this variance had to be considered on its own
merits and that in this case, there was a hardship. Further discussion followed on how big Flying
J was, what determines the location of one of their facilities, the recognition value of the Flying
J logo, comparisons to the Exxon sign nearby and the fact that Exxon does not have the same
topography problem.
Mr. Larrick asked the planning staff whether compromises had been made with
Flying J in regard to reduction of the sign size and approval of the request.
Mr. Ruddy replied that staff's position is that there is a hardship due to physical
topographical constraints as called for in the Code of Virginia. The square footage issue is not
a concern at this point. Mr. Ruddy then noted that Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Director for the
Frederick County Planning Department, was present and would be available to speak with them
regarding the work that had been done on the Interstate Overlay District amendments.
Chairman Sempeles reiterated his previous point regarding the size of the Flying
J company and his opinion that when they are seeking a location, they should do their homework
so there won't be the need to ask for higher sign heights.
Mr. Larrick asked Mr. Wyatt whether it was his intention to speak to the Board
before or after they voted.
Mr. Ruddy noted that the minor changes that were made to the Interstate Area
do not affect height at all; that it was based on the square footage.
Mr. Wyatt interjected that it was his intention to speak after the Board took
action, under "Other."
Mr. Nichols also stated his opinion that Flying J knew what the situation of the
property was when they bought it.
Mr. Larrick commented that there should be some give and take in these situations
and that Flying J should be given credit for the concessions they have made in trying to meet the
requirements of the Frederick County code. If any other cases like this appear before them, they
should be considered on a case-by-case basis and approving this particular variance does not
create a precedent.
Mr. Larrick made the motion to approve the request for the 26' height variance
which was then seconded by Mr. Rinker. The motion passed by the following majority vote.-
AYES:
ote:
AYES: (in favor of approving the variance) Mr. Rinker, Mr, Wakeman, Mr. Larrick
r
NO: (against the variance request) Mr. Nichols and Chairman Sempeles
Other
Mr. Wyatt stated that he wanted to advise the Board of Zoning Appeals of actions
that had been taken to address concerns which were raised by this Board. He said that one of the
concerns was not so much whether someone would appear before them with issues such as a
height issue because of topography and vegetation, but because of some language that was on
the books that was unclear which might prompt a significant amount of variances to come before
them. He explained that staff took the issues before the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee. The main concern at that point was the discrepancy between a primary use versus
an accessory use on the site. There were also some questions about clarification about how many
signs could be posted on a property.
Mr. Wyatt then handed out copies of the amendment, explaining that the areas of
change were highlighted. He then pointed out the significant issues, such as Qualifying Criteria
which are the uses that would be permitted to have a sign of greater height and square footage
than would be allowed in the underlying zoning districts. The second point he made was that the
new language makes it very clear that Frederick County would allow one Interstate Overlay sign
that complies with the requirements of this article on a parcel, regardless of the uses that would
be sharing that sign.
Some other noteworthy points were also brought out. Although the County has
minimum setback and spacing requirements, there may be issues that arise such as the State
having a different outdoor advertising standard which might require a greater setback or spacing
requirement. With that in mind, it may put them on notice to explore all avenues rather than just
relying on this ordinance. When more than one qualifying use is located on a single parcel, one
single support structure may be utilized, of which the total combined square footage of a sign
shall not exceed 500 square feet.
The last point was that the maximum height shall be determined by the nearest
interstate exit number so that if a property was several hundred feet away, there would be no
confusion as to which height would be used. In addition, the exit numbers have been described.
The Planning staff feels that these text amendments address the concerns that have been raised.
In a case such as the Flying J Travel Center, it is expected that there will be some kind of food
service associated with it. Because of the underlying zoning district in this situation, staff was
put in the situation of whether or not they would allow a restaurant because it is not in B3 [zoning
district]. Staff's feeling was that it was an appropriate accessory use. This change allows for a
greater square footage sign (500 square feet) if a use is considered to be permitted in a zoning
district regardless of whether it is the primary or accessory use.
Mr. Wyatt added that to answer a question Mr. Larrick had earlier, staff did not,
and will not, negotiate... it's either permitted or not. However, with that clarification in the
ordinance, it was clear that this user would be allowed to have the larger square footage which
addressed their upper end concern. It is the hope that with these changes, it would prohibit users
from appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals frivolously, and only when there was a true
hardship.
Mr. Larrick made the motion to make the amendments presented by Mr. Wyatt
a part of the minutes; there was a second by Mr. Rinker and was passed by unanimous vote.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman
Carol I. Cameron, Secretary
A:SMINMS1 199'AAUG I9.BZA
ARTICLE XVI
IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District
165-116. Intent.
The IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District is intended to provide commercial businesses within
an identified area the ability to utilize business signs that are in excess of the limits specified in Section
165-30 of this chapter. This flexibility is provided to inform the traveling public of business service
opportunities at specific interstate interchange areas. The standards within this Article are designed
to allow for additional visibility for commercial businesses while minimizing negative impacts to :pv
; th ;txave ,.publtS. residential properties that are adjacent to or within the proximity of
the overlay district. Established boundaries are based on reasonable sight distances and policies set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to designate each interstate interchange area and
provide guidance for considering the addition of subsequent properties.
165-117. District Boundaries.
Properties that are included within the Interstate Area Overlay District shall be delineated on
the Official Zoning Map for Frederick County. This map shall be maintained and updated by the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development.
165-118. Establishment of districts.
A. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors may apply the Interstate Area Overlay District
to properties within the proximity of interstate interchange areas upon concluding that:
(1) The property is in conformance with the idealized interchange development pattern
recommendation of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
(Z The placeznerit of a sign meetang `the recl�tsxeiints vi tlu se�taat will not have an
adverse impact on adjoining properties whose primary use is residential.
The property has met the requirements of Article II of this chapter, as well as the
requirements of Section 15.1-491(8) of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended.
B. The Interstate Area Overlay District shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning
districts where it is applied so that any parcel of land within the Interstate Area Overlay
District shall also be within one (1) or more zoning districts as specified within this chapter.
The effect shall be the creation of regulations and requirements of both the underlying zoning
district(s) and the Interstate Area Overlay District.
165-119. Qualifying criteria.
A.
Q.verlxyI$tr et,. th following uses shall be authorized to erect a commercial business
that complies with the reauirements of Section 165-120 of this Article.` 6 i is
Standard
Industrial
.......................... .
Classification
.............................
(alfy?ng Uses (SIC)
General merchandise and apparel stores 53 and 56
Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 55
Eating and drinking establishments 58
Hotel and lodging establishments 70
.........................
B. Qualifying uses specified under Section 165-119A that are authorized on property through
the issuance of a conditional use permit in the RA (Rural Areas) District may be entitled to
_._.
...................................................
erect do interstate overlay sign that is of a greater height and size than is permitted in the
underlying zoning district, provided that the property has met the requirements of Article III
of this chapter,. the business sign complies with the requirements of Section 165-120 of this
......................
Article and theualfyng use is located on property that is delineated on the Official Zoning
Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District.
165-120. District regulations.
A.
Permitted signs.
(1) interstate overlay signs.
(2) Signs permitted in the underlying zoning district(s).
B. Prohibited signs.
(1) Off -premises business signs.
(2) Signs prohibited in the underlying zoning district(s).
C. Number of freestanding commercial business signs.
(1) Onparcel UM ii
the Interstate Area Overlay District, one (1) interstate vena
sign that complies with the requirements set forth in this Article may be ertd.
D. Setback requirements.
1.:
()AJ
� .o: .'m sig# shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet
from any lot fine or property boundary line, and X11 meet alt otherpp>ciibl�: setbaeliv
I{r Ci1TGIilEnts
(2) When any intrstt Civer[sy sign exceeds the height requirement of the underlying
zoning district(s) and is located on property that adjoins or is across a right-of-way
from property that is in the RPQ (Residential Performance) District the HE (Higher
Education District 0r an'Y.
re
p .. PY wIuckt has a resrdertce as its pary use; the
setback shall be the normal setback plus one (1) foot for every foot over the maximum
height of the underlying zoning district(s).
The Planning Commission may waive any portion of the setback described in Section
165 120D(2) if 04ri be demonstrate the setback requirement comet be -met due to
the irregular size or shape of the parcel.
E. Spacing requirements.
The spacing requirements between ai interstate overlay sign and stns zt the
underlying zoning district(s) shall comply with the requirements in Section 165-30F
of this Chapter, and shall meet all! the... 06icabacin6y,rer,t�ItE
F. Maximum size.
(1) No interstate overlay sign shall exceed a total of three hundred (300) square feet in
area.
(2)
G. Illumination.
(1) Neither the direct nor reflected
from anv illuminated
create a
traffic hazard fbr operators of motor vehicles.
H. Maintenance and permits,
(1) All signs that are erected in the Interstate Area Overlay District shall meet the
maintenance and permit requirements as specified in Section 165-30I and Section
165-30J of this Chapter.
(2) If required, appropriate easements shall be secured by any property owner that desires
to erect an interstate overlay sign prior to the issuance of a sign permit in order to
.
ensure that required maintenance can be pez£otnaed.
I. Permitted heights.
11`tnts
<...
Exit Number
302
307
310
313
315
317
321
323
Maximum Business Sign Height
(feet above mean sea level)
760
800
805
805
750
815
700
710
BZA REVIEW DATE: 9/16/97
VARIANCE #013-97
TEDERICK/MILLER INVESTMENTS
LOCATION: The property is located at 110 Dots Way.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55I -1-3-159A
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use -
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District;
Land use - Residential
VARIANCE: A 12.2' rear setback variance for existing house and attached deck.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant cites exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or
shape of property.
STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district, the minimum rear
setback for a principal structure is 25'. This house was constructed prior to implementation of the
survey standards and is in violation of the setback requirement by 2.2'. The house is actually located
22.8' away from the rear property line. Attached to the house is a deck which extends beyond the
house an additional 10'. The house and attached deck are located 12.8' away from the adjoining
property line. Therefore, the principal structure as a whole is in violation of the setback requirement
by 12.2'.
Staff believes that this variance request, as it pertains to the house only, meets the test for Board of
Zoning Appeals as specified in Section 15.1-495(b)(1), (2) and (3) of the Code of Virginia. Strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce an undue hardship; this hardship is not shared
generally by other properties in the vicinity, and approval of the variance request will not have a
detrimental impact on the adjoining properties or the Zoning District as a whole. Therefore, staff
would recommend approval of a 2.2' variance for the house.
Variance #013-97, Tederick/Miller Investments
Page 2
September 8, 1997
With regard to the attached deck, staff would recommend denial of the additional 10' variance that is
required. In this case, staff is of the opinion that strict application of the zoning ordinance would not
prohibit the use of the property for residential purposes and a demonstrable hardship approaching
confiscation does not exist. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-495(2)(x) 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.
File: O:\AGENDAS\BZA\COMMENDS\TEDE RICK.BZA
VARIANCE #013-97 PIN: 551-1-3-159A
Tederick/Miller Investments
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: OCCUPANT: (if different)
1
NAME: .= �<.. r l' sr-• ',- _ �i✓.
ADDRESS '!3 •< -- r _ ��
TELEPHONE: 5f)-
NAME :
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include
State Route numbers):
r
-Do—) 5 V' A V
4. The property has a road fronts e of C ")
g ! feet and a depth
of feet and consists of ; acres. (please be
exact)
5. The property is owned by 1 L L f -i_, rv� ; /; NI_
as evidenced by deed from recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. on page of .-fie -deed
books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County:` Attaiah
a copy of the deed.„
hof` - J1
page 2 of 5
6. Magisterial District:
7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: S til` _ , _ 3
S. The existing zoning of the property is: �r:+'
9. The existing use of the property is •
10. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North
East
South -;,• r
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 reasons) 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 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 pQopl� w4 ll
be notified by mail of this application: _Please list,.Complete 14-
digit Property identification number)
NAME
Address - ^'
! - -04
Property ID#
Add Cht EC j -. -)4"
Property ID
Address
Property ID.
operty
dress --
Property
Property
rens
Property
ID# �z -
.3
Address
' �- p
Property
ID#
.
f.
Address
^,
Property
ID#
Address
C 5
Property
ID# �- -
-
Property ID
Address
Property ID.
operty
dress --
Property
Property
Dot's Way A,/
5n R/Ws�
Lot 160A
s
R=25.00' R=50.00 Lot 159A s6,_
91298 Sq. Ft, ^Q;!
R=375K/RF
L=15.4
F
/C?
q-
rLO
LEGEND
IRF Iron Rod Found
IRS Iron Rod Set
Lot 158
NOTES
1. According to F.I,R.M. Community—Panel
Number 510063 0115 B, this lot is located
in an area designated Zone C, which is an
area of minimal flooding.
2. No title report furnished.
3. Easements other than shown may exist.
4. Most easterly corner of dwelling and deck
encroach into 25' rear building restriction line
as shown.
or U�—'&
�� 12
U S.W. MARSH
CERT. 140.
1843
X
Lot 151
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the information shown on this
plat is based on an actual field survey mode under
my suppervision and there are no encroochme is
or visif�le easements unless shown.
S. W. Marsh, L.S.
BUILDING L OCA TION SURVEY — L 0 T 159A
C'ARLiSLE HEIGHTS SECTION III
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 SCALE: 1"=30' 1 SURVEY DATE: SEPT. 11, 1996
PLAT #: FILCH159A.DW;
I
MARSH & IL,IEGGE
Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
199 North Cameron street Winchester, Vtrgtnta 22601
(540) 667-N68 Fac. (540) 667-0469
J \
�C1
,��r
Lot 152
09 ,
���
Cor.
Pos t
/+ Lot
153 +\
X
Lot 151
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the information shown on this
plat is based on an actual field survey mode under
my suppervision and there are no encroochme is
or visif�le easements unless shown.
S. W. Marsh, L.S.
BUILDING L OCA TION SURVEY — L 0 T 159A
C'ARLiSLE HEIGHTS SECTION III
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 SCALE: 1"=30' 1 SURVEY DATE: SEPT. 11, 1996
PLAT #: FILCH159A.DW;
I
MARSH & IL,IEGGE
Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
199 North Cameron street Winchester, Vtrgtnta 22601
(540) 667-N68 Fac. (540) 667-0469
Page 5 of 5
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE # 3
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 APPLICANT
DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
(if other than applicant)
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF
APPROVAL
I I DENIAL
- DATE -
SIGNED:
DATE:
ACTION:
BZA CHAIRMAN