Loading...
BZA 11-17-98 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia November 17, 1998 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of October 20, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING 2) Variance #027-98 of Thomas M. Eichenberger, submitted by Lax Limited, for a 3' 11 " rear yard setback variance for an existing deck. The property is located at 223 Canyon Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 65F-2-2-148 in the Shawnee 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 20, 1998. PRESENT: James Larrick, Jr.,Vice Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District ABSENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; Ralph Wakeman, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner H; Christopher M. Mohn, Planner I1; Carol Cameron, Secretary CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Larrick called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, the minutes for the September 15, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved. Variance #026-98 of Winchester Countertop for a 20 -foot front yard variance for an office addition. The property is located at 183 Imboden Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-7-12 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - DENIED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information and staff report, and passed around photographs of the property. He directed the Board's attention to a site plan which was the previous site plan for the property showing the 3,000 -foot addition, and also shows the general layout of the property. Mr. Greg McFarland, applicant and General Manager of Winchester Countertop, passed 2 out a cost estimate sheet which he had prepared to show the Board the price restraints involved in relocating the proposed office space. He explained that the previous owner had placed the building almost right at the 75 -foot setback line which made it nearly impossible to add on. Mr. McFarland stated that the company currently has a total of 33 employees, working two shifts, at the facility. He said that the cost of relocating the offices would present a significant hardship to a small company like theirs, and described the difficulties involved such as moving the fire hydrant, adding two new bathrooms in the back, redoing the wiring and computer systems, and relocating the heating and air conditioning systems. After receiving estimates from several different companies, the new addition would cost approximately $33,000; however, if they had to relocate to the back by the warehouse, the cost would increase to $108,000. Mr. Rinker asked if the company planned to expand in the future; Mr. McFarland replied that their long-term goal was to expand in about four to five years. Other questions asked by the Board pertained to how much land was on the lot (3.07 acres), what type of traffic did they experience, how many production employees did they have and was this the only plant they have. Mrs. Catlett asked staff if there was the possibility of utilizing the space between the two buildings for an "L-shaped" office area, and if they had considered `building up.' Mr. Rinker asked if they could build into the production area. Discussion followed regarding different possibilities for increasing the office space without obtaining a variance; Mr. McFarland described the difficulties involved with each scenario such as the limitations of a pre -fab building's ceiling height, trouble with 53 -foot long tractor trailer trucks trying to get in and out of the loading area, infringement on the production area, and reiteration of the expense involved in relocating the restrooms and fire hydrant. (At this point, Chris Mohn, Planner H, left the meeting to retrieve the Schrock Bus Terminal site plan for the purpose of reviewing their plans to determine the location of the closest fire hydrant and water line.) After the Board members and Mr. McFarland reviewed the Schrock site plan, discussion followed on the hydrant location, fire lane access, whether all office staff had to be located on-site, additional questions regarding future expansion, and the need for providing additional parking spaces. There was no one else present to speak for or against the variance request. Upon a motion made by Mrs. Catlett and seconded by Mr. Rinker, Variance #026-98 of Winchester Countertop for a 20 -foot front yard variance for an office addition, was denied. The votes on the motion for denial were unanimous. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby deny Variance #026-98 of Winchester Countertop for a 20 -foot front yard variance for an office addition. 3 No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Mr. Rinker and second by Mrs. Catlett, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman Carol I. Cameron, Secretary AA IINLTESU998\Oct 20.BZA • • C� BZA REVIEW DATE: 11/17/98 VARIANCE #027-98 THOMAS M. EICHENBERGER LOCATION: The property is located at 223 Canyon Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 65F-2-2-148 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Residential VARIANCE: Request for a 3' 11" rear yard setback variance for an existing deck REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states that the deck was built Y1 1 " over the building setback line, and to down -size the deck would take away from the look of the house and deck. STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, the rear yard setback is 25'. The existing deck was constructed in violation of this setback and is located approximately 2 P I" from the rear property line. Staff is of the opinion that strict application of the ordinance would not produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation of the property. The elimination of the deck, or a portion of the deck, does not unreasonably restrict the use of the property. Furthermore, it would appear as though the deck could have been constructed in an equally attractive fashion while maintaining its function and meeting the setback requirements. Reconstruction of the deck in conformance with the setback requirements could still be achieved. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) states that no variance shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that a) strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that Variance #027-98, Thomas M. Eichenberger Page 2 November 10, 1998 such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, and; c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial O: Wgendas\BZA\COMMENTS\THOMAS-1.BZA Page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. The applicant is the owner 2. APPLICANT: other (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: 4 V 0, itird NAME: ADDRESS !,O-! STjl -P,�; 4 -f,%-, ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 21 77 L V11 4. The property has a road frontage of = f "1.3- 'i i feet and a depth of if -feet and consists of _'J2242acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by as evidenced by deed from 1-1, recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page:j 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: _SHAHJN 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.:�- 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of the property is: 10. Adjoining Property: ZQNING North p �5 b t i`' C L ? ►� East t 2 P South u 2 West R 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.") 860 TOAs hL 0- j,( ",-� 11Ue 4411 e e4ee, k t_ r i 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 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 naizes if necessary.) These people will be notifd by mail of this application: NAME • 6 r= F E) �14 ;- �: 0 k O J iATEV- Address �� �' �" ��L, 'u /'2 > . Property ID# (2 NAME % C 7 -Y1 L� =,t;" L� Address Property ID# G S Ir - 2 -2 - 1 lj- NAME Com; 6 e /�C l i G, L; � Address Property ID# 5 -� - i ® C( IVA % CC, VA' 6-77 NAME J'kSI D. l,/VCr%,�7b L '� =,-'Address I . C), 6cx Property ID# 5 137 VIt NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address 11115 f S TO CERTIFY T11AT ON JULY 31, 1997 1 MADE AN AWIRATE, SURVEY 01" VIE rRrPii 5F, SFiriail III;,Nr•,M Mil)-,•IiAT T1TEP.L A1tE NO FASI.:P1EN79 Or ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON VIE GROUND OTIMP, THAN 'Illt)SE SIIOW14 1I F:` E,011. IPF �E 0EV c� op ovr 5 83038' „ 3 32 DECK F N-� I STORY PRICK 8 FRAME � m � N H 223 O _ -I d 0 0 m cl z 10.8' I 328.09' TO PC I U'F RANGE CT. PLAT REFERENCE DB. 824 P. 140. r m 44Jr ' A-123.06, . 0�1 �►�. ,.. t� HOU(.:)E LOCATION SURVEY III SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHEST'-R, VIRGINIA (540) f;62-9123 LOT 148 SECTION II SENSENY GLEN Si nwNEE DISTRILT" REDlwFilCK COUNTY, VIRGINin DATI<: JULY -.31,1997 SCALE! I" = 25' TM. 65F-1-2-118 602096, IPF FUrURe oEVEI oP� \ S 83o33 40, ANT E 98.02 �Rq% 57/ lol\ I J r In Q' o' Ole DECK I V m I STORY BRICK B FRAME vm- � N # 223 0 _ C) 0 0 Ln O Z I 11��, I i 3 328.09' TO PC I IPF RANGE CT. PLAT REFERENCE DB. 824 P. 140. 1 33' BRA � LOT 148 '12,750 -SO T. m R=475.00' A=123.06 CANYON ROAD ( gp• WIDE ) LOT 148 SECTION II SENSENY GLEN SHAWNEE DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA VACATION & REDEDICATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT �=URSTENAU SURVEYING III SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA (.1540) 662-9323 uATE: MAY 18, 1998 !SCALE: I" = 25' TM. 65F-1-2•-148 Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT 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 APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER ----;r ?'=%i % :.;� =- DATE /% ' (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF -OFFICE USE ONLY- F7:" APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION: BZA CMAIRMAN