BZA 10-20-98 Meeting Agendai
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
October 20, 1998
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Minutes of September 15, 1998
PUBLIC HEARING
2) 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.
3) Other
`7
•
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 September 15, 1998.
PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr.,Vice Chairman,
Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek
District; Ralph Wakeman, Shawnee District
STAFF
PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner H; Christopher M. Mohn, Planner H; Carol Cameron,
Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the minutes for the
September 15, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Tabled from August 18, 1998 meeting: Variance #020-98 of Ralph S. Gregory for a proposed
retail optical store (request No.'s 3, 4, 5 & 6):
3. A 25 -foot variance from the active portion of the `B" category zoning district buffer
(north property boundary);
4. An eight -foot variance from the active portion of the "B" category zoning district
buffer (north property boundary),-
5.
oundary);5. A 25 -foot variance from the inactive portion of the `B" category zoning district
buffer, eliminating the inactive portion (south property boundary); and
6. A variance eliminating the six-foot opaque element of the required full screen along
Aylor Road (Rt. 647).
The property is located on the west side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) at the intersection with
Double Church Road (Route 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-
A-51 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - TABLED UNTIL ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 15, 1998
K
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy told the Board that since the August 18 meeting, the applicant has submitted
an application for rezoning the subject parcel, and it was staff's recommendation to keep the tabled items
on the table until the rezoning is approved or denied, at which time the need for a variance would be
eliminated if the rezoning is approved.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, of G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc., told the Board that they
are asking for the items regarding the buffering portion of the variance request remain tabled until after
the rezoning has gone to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
On a motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Rinker, items 93, 4, 5 and 6 of
Variance 9020-98 were tabled until on or before December 15, 1998. The motion was passed by
unanimous vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby table items
#3, 4, 5 and 6 of Variance #020-98 until on or before December 15, 1998.
NEW BUSINESS
Variance #020-98 of Ralph S. Gregory for a proposed retail store. The following revised variances
are requested:
1. A 34.82' front yard setback variance from I-81;
2. A 19.80' front yard setback variance from Aylor Road (Rt. 647). The property is
located on the west side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) at the intersection with Double Church
Road (Route 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-51 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
AC'T'ION -APPROVED WITH CONDI'T'ION
DISCUSSION
Mr. Gyurisin told the Board that after the last meeting, the location of the building has
been changed; therefore, the front yard setback variance requests have been revised. He brought a
rendition of the proposed plans for the Board's review.
After a question from Chairman Sempeles regarding whether or not this plan met
Frederick County code specifications, Mr. Ruddy told the Board that a site plan would have to be
submitted before building permits could be issued. Landscaping, parking, etc. would be resolved at that
time.
No one else was present to speak for or against the request.
Mr. Larrick questioned what the results would be if the rezoning was not approved.
3
Discussion followed, with Mr. Ruddy stating that all indications are that the rezoning would be
approved; however, as the final decision is up to the Board of Supervisors, there is no guarantee. With
that in mind, Mr. Larrick moved to approve the revised setback requests on the condition that the
rezoning application is approved. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve
items #1 and 2 of Variance #020-98 of Ralph S. Gregory, as revised and re -advertised, for a 34.82'
front yard setback variance from I-81; and a 19.80' front yard setback variance from Aylor Road
(Rt. 647), on the condition that the associated rezoning application is approved. The property
is located on the west side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) at the intersection with Double Church Road
(Route 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-51 in the Opequon
Magisterial District.
Application #016-98, Appeal by Mr. Richard A. Dye of the assignment of an address for a 2.2 -acre
lot owned by Mr. David Hicks of Hicks' Contracting, and of the issuance of a building permit for the
same property. The property is located at 631 Light Road and is identified with Property Identification
Number 20-A-321 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
ACTION - AFFIRMATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy explained the appeal application and the background surrounding the events
that led to the appeal. He stated that the Board of Supervisors' actions are appealable to the Circuit
Court, and that the issuance of an address for a new structure is part of the building permit process. Mr.
Ruddy reiterated that the subdivision and building permit approvals met all applicable zoning
requirements and was, therefore, appropriate to be approved by the Zoning Administrator. He also stated
that Mr. Robert Mitchell, attorney for the Board ofZoning Appeals, was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Richard A. Dye, appellant, came forward and passed out handouts to the Board
members. Mr. Dye outlined the building permit process as it pertained to the lot in question, and his
reasons for objecting to the approval of the subdivision and ensuing building permit. He cited several
legal cases which had gone to the Supreme Court, and went into an extensive discussion of his
understanding of the difference between the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance.
Chairman Sempeles stated that he did not believe the Board of Zoning appeals had the
power to deal with this matter. Mr. Dye stated his concern regarding whether Mr. Mitchell could be
completely objective considering that he was retained by Frederick County, and discussion followed
whether or not the Board actually had the power to hear the appeal. Mr. Ruddy clarified the fact that Mr.
Mitchell was the attorney for the Board of Zoning Appeals, not for Frederick County nor its staff. Mr.
Dye then continued with his points of contention.
Mr. Rinker asked Mr. Dye what his interest in the property was, as he was not listed in
4
the list of adjoining property owners. Mr. Dye stated that he was an adjoining property owner but had
not listed his own name. Mr. Rinker asked whether the road that runs through the property (Route 685)
is state -maintained; Mr. Dye replied that it was.
There was no one else present to speak for or against the variance.
Mr. Robert Mitchell, Attorney for the Board of Zoning Appeals, came forward and
clarified the Board's responsibilities in regard to the appeal. Procedurally, it was correct to hear the
appeal of the issuance of a building permit. It was Mr. Mitchell's opinion that the Zoning Administrator
acted in accordance with the legislative mandates in issuing the permit in this case.
Further discussion ensued on what exactly was approved by the Board of Supervisors,
their legislative right to do so and, again, what the Board of Zoning Appeals' responsibility in this case.
Mr. Dye requested to speak again, although the public hearing was officially closed, in
a "rebuttal" capacity. He reiterated his previous points, and upon questioning whether he had tried
talking to the parties involved, stated that he had spoken with Mr. Ed Yost, lawyer for David Hicks, but
was not satisfied with the offer they had made.
Mrs. Catlett asked Mr. Dye for a simple explanation as to why he was opposed to
approval of the subdivision and the assignment of an address for the new building. Mr. Dye replied that
since everyone else is required to have five -acre lots in that area, he felt that allowing waivers decreased
value properties and went against the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
After clarification by Mr. Ruddy as to the responsibility of the Mapping and Graphics
manager in assigning addresses, and further clarification by Mr. Mitchell as to whether it would be
appropriate to affirm the action of Zoning Administrator, Mr. Rinker made a motion to affirm the action
of the Zoning Administrator in approving the building permit. Mrs. Catlett offered the second and the
motion passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby affirm the
determination made by the office of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the
Zoning Ordinance concerning the zoning approval for a building permit and address for a new
structure on lot 20 -A -32I.
'variance #023-98 submitted by Deborah 10oeppel for a four -inch side yard setback variance for
an existing residence. This property is located at 108 Tern Avenue, and is identified with
Property Identification Number 75I-1-3-314 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - APPROVED
DISCUSSION
5
Mr. Ruddy read the background information and staff report, and passed around
photographs of the property.
Bob Boden, real estate agent and representative for the Kloeppels, told theBoard that the
Kloeppels had moved out of the area and were unable to attend the public hearing. He said that title
insurance could not be obtained on the property without approval of the variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Jerry Flynn, adjoining homeowner, told the Board that he thought the Kloeppels wanted
to take four inches from his property line but the Board reassured him that the variance would not take
anything away from his property. Mr. Boden said that at one time there was talk of the possibility of
doing a property line adjustment but that they decided to go with the variance.
Upon motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the variance request was
approved as requested. The vote was all ayes with the exception of Mrs. Catlett, who abstained.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does
hereby approve by majority vote Variance #023-98 as submitted by Deborah Kloeppel for a four -
inch side yard setback variance for an existing residence.
Variance #024-98 submitted by Katherine B. Casilear for a 6' 10" and 4' 10" rear yard setback
variance for the conversion of an existing concrete patio to a year-round attached room. This
property is located at 163 Stuart Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number
62A-3-1-3 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION -APPROVED
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy read the background information and staff comments, and had photographs
showing the house, the patio and the adjacent properties.
Connie Casilear, daughter of the applicant, spoke on behalf of her mother. She told the
Board that she and her mother both reside at the residence, and that when Charlie Ricketts built the
house back in 1965, he placed the house "askew" and to the rear of the property. She said they did not
realize this until Mr. Gregory came to do measuring and estimates, and informed them of the problem.
She presented letters from four of the adjoining property owners, who stated that they had no objections
to the proposed addition. These letters were received from the following people: Oleta Seal, Betty
Smith, Richard and Catherine Frederick, and Daniel Prock; and were entered into the record.
Mr. Rinker asked about Ms. Casilear's mother's present state of health; she replied that
it has deteriorated over the past several years, and was unable to attend the public hearing on advice of
6
her nurse.
Mrs. Catlett asked if there was an alternative placement for the addition; Ms. Casilear
explained that other locations had been considered but proved too impractical because they wanted to
add a handicap ramp.
No one else was present to speak for or against the variance. Mr. Rinker stated that he
had no problem with the request because it was going into the same "footprint" as the existing patio, and
that it would make it easier for Ms. Casilear's mother to stay in the house where she has lived for 35
years.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the variance was
approved by the following majority vote:
YEAS: Mr. Manuel, Mr. Rinker, Mr. Wakeman
NAYS: Mrs. Catlett, Mr. Larrick
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve by
majority vote Variance #024-98 submitted by Katherine B. Casilear for a 6' 10" and 4' 10" rear
yard setback variance for the conversion of an existing concrete patio to a year-round attached
room.
Variance #025-98 submitted by Gary and Dora Miller for a 60 -foot side yard setback variance
to place a mobile home adjacent to agricultural land. This property is located at 2732 Laurel
Grove Road, and is identified by Property Identification Number 59 -A -73A in the Back Creek
Magisterial District.
ACTION - APPROVED
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ruddy read the background information and staff report, and showed photographs
of the property and a plat which illustrated the property line and placement of the new mobile home.
Mrs. Dora Miller, applicant, spoke on behalf of the application. She stated that there
really was no other place on the property to place the mobile home, and that they estimated construction
to begin in about two weeks.
There was no else present to speak for or against the variance, and there was no further
discussion from the Board.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the variance request
was approved by unanimous motion.
LL I'I' i.1JSOL `` E, �, gnat t e ;� rederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve by
unanimous vote Variance #025-98 as submitted by Gary and Dora Miller for a 60 -foot side yard
setback variance to place a mobile home adjacent to agricultural land.
OTHER
Mr. Ruddy introduced Mr. ChristopherJi. Mohn, who began employment with Frederick
County as a Planner II in the Department of Planning & Development on August 31, 1998. He stated
that Mr. Mohn had experience with the Board of Zoning Appeals in Loudoun County and also in Fairfax
County, Virginia, and that staff looked forward to his involvement in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
by unanimous consent.
Respectfully submitted,
Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman
Carol I. Cameron, Secretary
AAM IMIDES\ 1998\sept_ 15. BZA
BZA REVIEW DATE: 10/20/98
VARIANCE #026-98
WINCHESTER COUNTERTOP
LOCATION: The property is located at 183 Imboden Drive.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54-7-12
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned MI (Light Industrial) District; Land use - Manufacturing
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community) and M1
(Light Industrial); Uses: Mobile home, vacant, industrial and self -storage
VARIANCE: Request for a 20 -foot front yard setback variance for an office addition
REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states that office space is needed to reduce
overcrowding and congestion in current office. Recent growth has caused a need to add office help
and ease overcrowding.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Within the MI (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the front yard setback is 75 feet. The applicant is
proposing to place the addition 55 feet from the front setback line, thus requiring the 20 -foot front
yard setback variance.
In this case, strict application of the zoning ordinance does not prohibit the use of the property. The
property is currently being used for manufacturing purposes. Also, the applicant is not limited to
choice of location. It may be feasible to place the addition at another location on the property in
compliance with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, the proposed addition
will impact the previously approved parking area, including the handicapped parking. The Code of
Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(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 that would significantly restrict the use of the property clearly does not exist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
Variance #026-98
Winchester Countertc
PIN: 54-7-12
Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 10-08-98
Page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
1. The applicant is the owner
other . (Check one)
2. APPLICANT:
OCCUPANT: (if
different) ;__,,_
NAME:
NAME:
ADDRESS_�3,3
ADDRESS:
Lo
TELEPHONE:
TELEPHONE:
-.
3. The property is located
at (give exact directions and include
Route
numbers):
pState
16T. . T,, --j 4c} ' 'f c n1
p
Z r, k, n .. a^. C2 D
U Y I•�C S 2
[jE-
L Le R-4 n,,,
2. - !..kee l-. 0,
, kizs,4
4. The property has a road frontage of ,2,2 Ll feet and a depth
of (, 9 ,� t33 feet and consists of 3,o -?o,? acres. (please be
exact)
5. The property is owned by ccV � :lei, , St,.eOr t"XC_
as evidenced by deed from A__4e1,C S recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. 1,3 on page 91 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: S 4e^r •v;. 11
7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.:
8. The existing zoning of the.property is: lryl- 1
9. The existing use of the property is:t,n„
10. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North( -A - 9 I )&"e
East K C,4N I -
South arX4,-; Pr , 1 / E- 4/•L V
West 5 = f ' S 40 eA e-
/~ + ►
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.")
r 1
Ili-,^,�.,c,e tin ry-4 nT �'x,ai.—, A0a
C
12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being 'sought
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
SJce.C- ,5 /Vccje,C' 4V 4 -AJ -C - ou'r [ �J w • ..j a� CC � �5�. a
� n C v � , z +-�,'� �;..�-�• Cr �� e -� �- �r-s •., �Lf i,fa� C�r,.r 52 � C r7 t�a� � e3
oal
1.3. Additional comments, if any
!-1 f.Javo/z �y rtc-t! i rs%�z o�z -f , `fslc. w. !Z Inc'
i rw..�r,.� :l:c TZz �ti�/5 w
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 notifd by mail of this application:
NAME f.�. i a 1��� c� s f, �- Address 131,4 3
Property ID#
NAMEJ,�fr f- �, c A-,,4 Address 621 4t,11 ,o, G-�:..� ,F. U "N -f -U
Property ID# q - 7 - ? a
NAME address I o -75 -22,6v3
Property ID# TY-
NAME Address
Property IN
NAME Address
Property ID# 5-Y - 7 -L A
NAME E ,, l L Address 0 . L Q v "r l --� It,, Lecsi. Y a2v
Property ID# S q - -7--t4
tQ7W u a
Property ID#
NAME
Property ID#
NAME
Property ID#
NAME
Property ID#
Address
Address
Address
Address
Pap 5of5
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE # 0 -,�k 6 ` 19
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 ac DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
(if other than applicant)
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
- DATE -
ACTION:
DATE
APPROVAL SIGNED-
BZA CHA RN AN
DENIAL DATE:
r4 ld40-1-
80�
, JG
Yc'
t
i
I
LOT 12:
°k 5 ,'1 8 Acre I BAKER LANE INDUSTR14L. PARKZONED: M-1
rA Fi EqFENCE
i
�F
Sr'►�� &, '.' ., ti' Ato 4aa„ y, � ri ,
ADDITKNAL p RiRE0
VLR � SHAIX ALOW
fDRAWACRE F11%
ED(lStiW AGG ►TE,%FF CE �e-
L,
3`
, TO THE MDMA 692.6 C :.
,,, a-p• ., �► #
1� I w w
i r�►tkyi 1-/�•.� 3 .r k3 .+ JYt �:} ��1 �� ` Aw•w ++ +:w• w Jt•�, ��Y',i
'y'y��11 � 'Y .. g ��� �"� rt�l& ��`�� � # �'� � .• nw �w www ww y-. ! 4 �r.i _�•
i't �'- rt S�lb q-4I”. S, t� 7"TI Tom- ..iM '*' 'ww'�wwM •wa n�� wwww � � �' , �3
_Ir �,,��rry ,� 3 3 '+,jd,, y�� '�•� (,y� tl.+� i' i � w w w w ww w �w+w wu }� 5 _
iL' ! .y., 9 ! [S.',•.°S•mC �" r r .w' w www "' 1'•w • w M
,�•'6AR www
4_
wCi.�ww•' w w www
V 'E �°} r - '. (: v d y. F i. .. ,f r' r 7� w#•1 w�4. l►w►w'w�A ww, aww w w w _ •
'�a F'fr_r - r r •' lti •:a wwf��i' w1a�'"w'wFw'9w" �1
R- w a . z
apdt �i"v` r j sf iY� raw wwwai, ^ • iEX
>t � 892."x. ; : f�j{�ji1 d . �w a•
DM
� r -11 -. • .•. � :� z' ,t'a n ww w�.wa rw•^w w - - • + -
f � n
, •5� •c:4. ,.Af=:�=l f - t _• at, /. 'p��; ;:: .}. f a wi► i w A +r .wwar' ,1. -
f .e.td :'1. ; • �•y.. > R ~• • w+•-� Aw ww.wwa wn� ; _ �4�+,. �1
jbww
Y w w w w r
• ww w
- , t� �� ti .h"t / ��?. ls►fRe awww�wat ww _ wnwwA ! �. { '
.J rn�
i �r✓TT 'Sly'* f. 7i ww A_w��. w� My ^w w^ w w.^� ,y- ;::
J t � tv,'��r1\'�i -X�ia^ .j �'r► � iw^w+ww w�..l � �. www*www:•^'� �Q. J * p,,� _
♦ . i - �/ ,vV"1 �i�y, I r � 1. - � w8 wd ®®w.�� .�� '� n � F � it3 -.•!. i
- 3 � • t • � :p`�yY,}�'�!s, i _6 -� _ rf � - e '4wey3.o.w,'.'P�.r'��_ Y v : w �j �xf.-.
��f�f';~� -1� A v•ly�t 1s '�' fin• � �—� t# 1 ,'�} # ;.r ,.
y (. 4� � ..4-iw. � °. r h?`.•_y.:: ' it ��
r _ •fir � d� .•t���` �%C:'<'S>r'.:,; + f -
5 �zy.F �•aNLgi ��Pt. '.F �F �' , � Q i
i "'il'r"'A �� ..I'ti r.1 '. �1 , A• 1 ; r 'Y � .U..�a ♦�)q.;�J �' l r_ � ,{_..i l -
e '�•'� a%€ , • 1'-i � =�i �Y r •'. /` �� �Y�.��rl: f� nnTf .'t`
� t . '. a .,� 1 �[�.' � •�
t
1/
410
cc
U a
gaA. �.
W {ormaim to 13 Matto 1' X15i'lti
VDOT Jack SoraSnw (hlcii '�,A