Loading...
BZA 09-15-98 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia September 15, 1998 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of August 18, 1998 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2) 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. 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. PUBLIC HEARING 2) 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. V43J 3 J I I 3) Application #016-9$, 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 -32I in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 4) Variance #023-98 submitted by Deborah Kloeppel 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. 5) 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. 6) 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. 7) Other Page 2 �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 August 18, 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; Carol Cameron, Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1998 On a motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the minutes for the July 21, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved with one correction. 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 - POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy informed the Board that there was some question as to whether Mr. Dye's appeal should be presented as a public hearing or dealt with by the Board as a discussion item. After discussion with the Board of Zoning Appeals' attorney, Mr. Robert Mitchell, the recommendation was for postponement of the appeal until next month, at which time it will be heard as a public hearing item. Upon motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, Mr. Richard Dye's appeal was postponed until the September 15, 1998 meeting. 2 Variance #019-98 of Kentucky Fried Chicken, submitted by KRA Food Service, L.L.C., for a 31.583 -square -foot variance for a standardized, franchised business sign. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fox Drive and Foxridge Lane next to Sheetz, and is identified with Property Identification Number 42-A-195 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION - DENIED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information and staff report, and passed around photographs of the KFC property in Stephens City. Mr. Ben Butler, attorney representing KRA which is the franchisee for Kentucky Fried Chicken, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He told the Board that the tract of land is oddly shaped and the site for the KFC store is actually the .906 acres as seen on the site plan, and the rest of the land lies to the west and up behind the Sheetz and up to Rt. 37. He explained that no one was trying to hide anything, and they agreed that it is one tract of land, 5.27 acres. He went on to explain that the visibility from Routes 522 and 37, and the location of the Sheetz store were the reasons they were requesting the variance. He stated that the sign size being requested is the smallest that KFC makes, and that according the Frederick County Code, they could actually erect more than one sign but were attempting to avoid doing so. Mr. Stephen Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc., came to the podium to assist Mr. Butler in answering questions. Mr, Larrick asked staff for clarification of the statement by Mr. Butler regarding the number of signs allowable at the site. Mr. Ruddy confirmed that according to the 50' frontage rule, they could erect more than one sign. Mr. Gyurisin reiterated that they were not asking for a height variance but just for the sign itself. The sign has three components: reader board, the main sign, and the bucket (which will not be rotating). The total would be a little over 181 square feet. Mr. Larrick asked the applicant why they felt that this site constituted a hardship, considering the fact that the sign requirements would be the same whether the lot was narrow or not. Mr. Butler replied that the Sheetz store "overwhelms" the KFC site. Discussion followed on the size of the Flying J sign, the Sheetz sign, and the height limitation of 35 feet in the B2 Zoning District. Mrs. Catlett asked Mr. Gyurisin if there was a planned entrance off of Route 522; he replied that there would be no entrance off of Route 522 and no entrance directly onto Fox Drive. They utilize the access right-of-way behind Sheetz and Fox Ridge Lane. Discussion followed on whether there would be further development of the property in the future, whether there would be signs located on Route 37, and the fact that franchise signs had a special exception in the Zoning Ordinance for 3 standardized signs. Several citizens were in attendance in opposition to the variance request. Mr. Chris Cottercll, adjoining property owner at 100 Ridge Court, told the Board that he was speaking on behalf of approximately 30 other homeowners who were unable to be in attendance. He said that when the KFC site plan was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission, the developers stated that they wanted to work with the homeowners in a spirit of cooperation; however, the sign the applicants are requesting would alter the character of the neighborhood. Julie Cotterell, also of 100 Ridge Court, spoke in opposition to the request, stating that traffic is a considerable issue due to Sheetz, Food Lion, a bank, etc. Mr. Larrick stated that the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements for the Board to grant a variance in this case, and moved for denial. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion which passed unanimous vote for denial. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby deny, by unanimous vote, Variance #019-98 of Kentucky Fried Chicken, submitted by KRA Food Service, L.L.C., for a 31.583 -square -foot variance for a standardized, franchised business sign. Variance #021-98 of Kentucky Fried Chicken, submitted by KRA Food Service, L.L.C., for a 15 - foot variance from the inactive portion ofthe `B" category zoning district buffer, and a 15 -foot variance from the active portion of the `B" category zoning district buffer for additional parking. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fox Drive and Foxridge Lane next to Sheetz, and is identified with Property Identification Number 42-A-195 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION - WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information and the staff comments, and directed the Board's attention to the approved site plan on the easel at the front of the room. He pointed out that the site plan clearly shows the full screen buffer requirement to a residential area. He said that no subdivision application has been submitted yet; therefore, there is no limitation to placement of parking spaces. Mr. Ruddy circulated photographs which clearly show that although the applicant assured staff that the hedgerow buffer would be maintained, it had been completely eliminated. Mr. Stephen Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc., and Mr. Ben Butler, attorney representing KRA, came to the podium. Mr. Gyurisin stated that they wanted to make it clear to the Board that they had done everything they could to make it clear to the contractor that the natural buffer be maintained, including placing instructions on the site plan to this effect. The subcontractors were responsible for removing the trees along Fox Ridge Drive; however, steps had been taken to replace 4 the landscaping according to Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mrs. Catlett questioned whether the five -acre parcel had been subdivided, and whether the parking spaces could be placed to the back of the building. Mr. Butler explained that it was their intent to "compact" the parking on the site to prevent tearing up the green space; however, after question from the Board, conceded that there was no guarantee that this property would not be developed in the future. Considerable discussion followed on how long it would take to replace the buffer which had been removed by the subcontractor, which types of plants would be used and how long it would take before they reached the desired height. Julie Cotterell, resident who spoke in opposition previously, came forward again to express opposition to the variance request. She stated that the green space is the only thing that divides the homeowners from Kentucky Fried Chicken and they consider it "sacred land." She stated that there is adequate parking already for KFC, and if seven more spaces are really so important, why could they not be placed in back of KFC; why did they have to be placed on the side? This would create extra noise, trash, people sitting there; the drive-through is already on that side and the residents do not want to have to drive through there to get to their homes. Chris Cotterell, who also spoke previously, expressed opposition to the parking variance for many of the same reasons already stated. Linda Thomason, resident, stated that she did not want to share the street with the entrance to KFC. She mentioned that there is a bus stop on the corner and children should not be standing in an area with that much traffic. Damia Carmichael, resident, stated that she is aware that the other businesses are there but expressed concerns over losing green space, having an entrance to their community that is aesthetically pleasing, resale values, and the encroaching asphalt. John Kay, of 100 Ridge Court, asked the applicant if parking, visibility, signage from Rt. 522 was such an issue, why didn't they buy one of the other corner lots. His felt that this application was the applicant's attempt to "shoe -horn" in on the Sheetz business and should not be granted. Charles "Chuck" DeHaven, Stonewall District and Planning Commission Chairman, encouraged the Board to deny the request, stating that the applicant has land and other options available, and that citizens have a right to expect that the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance be upheld. At this point, Mr. Ben Butler approached the Board and stated that the applicant wished to withdraw the application. The Board accepted the applicant's withdrawal. Mr. Rinker asked for clarification of the terms active and inactive buffers and discussion followed. 61 Variance #017-98 of Gary and Janice Tusing for a 12.5 -foot side yard variance for an addition to an existing single-family structure. The property is located at 172 Long Meadows Lane, and is ideritII ed with Property identi1cation Number 9V -A-485 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information and presented photographs of the applicant's property and the proposed site for the addition and deck. Mr. Gary Tusing, applicant, approached the Board and explained that he believed the variance should be granted on medical reasons. He stated that the house was built in 1955, and was built to be handicap accessible. He said that the addition was in anticipation of their in-laws moving in with them due to his mother-in-law's contracting "lateral myopathy." Mr. Tusing and his wife desired to keep her out of a nursing home, and found out after the work was contracted out that a variance was required. He also stated that due to the size of the property (2/3 of an acre), location septic lines and trees, there is an undue hardship present. Mr. Larrick asked the applicant what his response was to staffs recommendation that there were other options available and still be within zoning requirements. Mr. Tusing replied that they wanted to leave the trees on the south side, and that building on the other side of the patio would be impractical. Further discussion followed regarding the benefit of the deck, whether a reduction in the square footage requested would be a possibility, the purpose of the addition, clarification of the square footage and other inconsistencies shown on the plats, whether the deck would ever be covered in the future, etc. Mr. Harold Emery, adjoining property owner, spoke in favor of the variance saying that he had no problem with the Tusing's plans. Mr. Rinker moved that the variance be approved as requested; Mr. Wakeman seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following majority vote: AYES: Chairman Sempeles, Mrs. Catlett, Mr. Wakeman, Mr. Rinker NAYS: Mr. Larrick BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve, by majority vote, Variance #017-98 of Gary and Janice Tusing by 12.5 -foot side yard variance for an addition to an existing single-family structure. 1 Variance #020-98 of Ralph S. Gregory for a proposed retail optical store. The following variances are requested: 1. A 29.9 -foot front yard setback variance from I-81; 2. A 12.7 -foot front yard setback variance from Aylor Road (Rt. 647); 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. 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 - APPROVED REQUEST #1 FOR A 29.9 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FROM 1-81, AND #2 FOR A 12.7 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FROM AYLOR ROAD (RT. 647) DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information, explaining each request individually, and presented photographs of the property. He stated that staff felt strongly about preserving the buffer adjacent to the residential properties, and had looked at other uses and square footage permitted in the B2 Zoning District. Chairman Sempeles asked staff about the benefit ofpostponing the application until next month, and if applying for a rezoning would solve many of the requests. Staff's recommendation was that the Board should offer direction to the applicant in regard to building size, looking for different location, etc. Also, a clarification of the gas line situation was available now. Mrs. Carolyn Gregory, part-owner, and Mr. Stephen Gyurisin of G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. were available to answer questions. Mrs. Gregory stated that they felt they needed the requested variances because they had been trying to develop this land since 1991. Mr. Gyurisin stated that his firm had been working on this project for the past six months; discussion followed on past and present plans for the property, location of the easement for the gas main, discussions with VDOT on entrance requirements, active and inactive buffers, and that the proposed use of the property may change. He explained that they have been working with staff on the rezoning option; however, they believed that rezoning the property to B2 would not allow expansion of the building size, just uses. Further discussion took place regarding one-story versus two-story building, the belief that this plan would offer considerable improvement to the property, the possibility of reducing the size of the building, visibility and safety issues, buffer and screening concerns, and further considerations regarding landscaping and the buffer and associated right-of-way along Aylor Road. Mr. Larrick asked Mr. Gyurisin what his response was to the staff comment that most of the requests were actually a rezoning issue. Mr. Gyurisin responded that the property [in question] is going to remain undeveloped, and that the staff had worked with them on the active and inactive buffer issues. Mrs. Catlett asked for clarification on the exact proposed use of the property; Mrs. Gregory replied that although they have talked to a tenant regarding an optical store, tenants come and go all the time, and that they could not lock themselves into one use. Ms. Teresa Eaton, who owns the corner lot, expressed her concerns about the traffic patterns in that area and the operating hours of any business that may go in there. Mr. Larrick moved for approval of request #1 and 92 as requested, and Mr. Wakeman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve, by unanimous vote, request #1 for a 29.9 -foot front yard setback variance from I-81, and #2 for a 12.7 -foot front yard setback variance from Aylor Road (Rt. 647). After some discussion on plans ofthe proposed building and -the preliminary landscaping, Mr. Rinker moved that the other items (numbers 3 through 6) be tabled until the September meeting. Mrs. Catlett seconded the motion. The motion for tabling items #3 through #6 passed by unanimous motion. Variance #022-98 of Richard and Nancy Heisey for a variance of 51.54 feet and a variance of 91.32 feet from the minimum lot width requirement of .250 feet at the front set back line; and a variance of 122 feet and a variance of 206 feet from the maximum 4:1 depth ratio requirement. The property is located at 669 Dicks Hollow Road, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 41-A-40 and 41 -A -40C in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information and staff report, and showed a plat of the property. Mr. Richard Heisey, applicant, came to the podium and explained that they bought the property in 1993 and wants to clear up the nonconformity, as they have a contract on the five -acre lot contingent on the Board's decision. E:3 There were no questions from the Board, and there was no one else present to speak for or against the variance request. Upon a motion made by Mr. Rinker for approval and seconded by Mr. Wakeman, the variance request was approved as presented by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve, by unanimous vote, Variance #022-98 of Richard and Nancy Heisey for a variance of 51.54 feet and a variance of 91.32 feet from the minimum lot width requirement of 250 feet at the front set back line; and a variance of 122 feet and a variance of 206 feet from the maximum 4:1 depth ratio requirement. Variance #18-98 of Hayfield Assembly of God, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a 55.5 - foot north side yard variance for an addition to the church. The property is located at 5118 Northwestern Pike, and is identified by Property Identification Number 39-A-36 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy read the background information, and placed a site plan on the easel for the Board to review. Additional photos of the property were also presented. Staff's recommendation was that the church should consolidate. It was noted that one of the adjoining property owners sent a letter stating his approval of the church's request. Mr. Mark Smith, of Greenway Engineering and representative for the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the existing church is tied to the heritage of that building because of the stone which had been mined from the surrounding area. Mr. Larrick asked how the applicant felt about staff's suggestion for consolidation. Mr. Smith's response was that this suggestion was taken into consideration; however, there was an easement present which could not be built across. Upon a suggestion that the easement be relocated, Mr. Smith replied that the soggy, wet soil was not conducive to development, and that the picnic area would be developed in the future. The affected neighbor, Mr. Kelly, had been contacted and did not have a problem with the church's plan for expansion. The Reverend Bobby Basham, pastor of the Hayfield Assembly of God, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that they felt the need to connect the two buildings for practical reasons such as people not wanting to go from one building to another in bad weather, and to present a universal, overall appearance. 9 As there were no further questions or discussion, Mr. Larrick moved that the request be granted and for purposes of presidential value, it be limited to non -taxed property in the future. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion, and the request was approved as presented. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve, by unanimous vote, Variance #18-98 of Hayfield Assembly of God, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a 55.5 -foot north side yard variance for an addition to the church, with the stipulation that it be limited to non -taxed property in the future. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman Carol I. Cameron, Secretary A:\1vIINUTES\1998\AUG 18.HZA • C� i BZA REVIEW DATE: 8/18/98; 9/15/98 VARIANCE #020-98 RALPH S. GREGORY LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) at the intersection with Double Church Road (Route 641). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-51 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned B2 (Business General) and RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Residential VARIANCE: 1. A 29.9 -foot front yard setback variance from I-81; Revised - 34.82' 2. A 12.7 -foot front yard setback variance from Aylor Road (Rt. 647); Revised -19.80' 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 inactive portion of the `B" category zoning district buffer (north property boundary); 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). REASON FOR VARIANCE: Due to the size, shape and narrowness of the property and location of I-81, Route 647 and intersecting Route 641, development of the property is restricted and limited. The property has double road frontage. STAFF COMMENTS: At the Board's August meeting, variance requests #1 and #2 pertaining to the front yard setback reductions, were approved. The remaining variances were tabled by the Board. Subsequently, the Variance #020-98, Ralph S. Gregory Page 2 September 8, 1998 applicant will be pursuing a rezoning of the parcel in order to alleviate the need for the remaining variances. The applicant has requested that the variances remain on the table until the rezoning ofthe property has been accomplished. Assuming the rezoning is successful, the applicant will be able to move the building out of the buffer area to the north. As a result of this shift, the location of the building encroaches further into the front setback areas than previously approved by the board. The applicant is requesting to revise the front setback variance requests to 34.82' adjacent to Interstate 81 and 19.80' adjacent to Aylor Road. This would place the structure 15.18' from Interstate 81, 15.20' from Aylor Road, and maintain the integrity of the zoning district buffer. Again, the front setback variances may be appropriate to permit the location of a building on this site, especially when considering that every attempt should be made to preserve the integrity of the required zoning district buffers. This is indeed a unique piece of property. As you may see from the copy of the site plan included with your agenda, the property has double frontage along Interstate 81 and Aylor Road, has a zoning district boundary splitting the property in two, and is surrounded by residentially zoned land being used for residential purposes. In addition, the property is only 30,488 square feet in size. In order to develop this property in any way, a variance, or combination of variances, may be necessary. The challenge in this case is to determine which variance requests are appropriate and what scale of development provides a reasonable use of the property. As the Board is aware, a reasonable use is not necessarily the most profitable use of the property. Within the B2 (Business General) zoning district, the front setback adjacent to a primary or arterial highway, Interstate 81, is 50'. The front setback adjacent to collector or minor streets, Aylor Road, is 35'. The applicant proposes to place a building 34.82' from Interstate 81 and 15.2' from Aylor Road. To summarize the zoning district buffer requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-37 requires that any development occurring adjacent to property in another zoning district must provide a zoning district buffer. In this case, development in the B2 (Business General) district adjacent to land zoned RP (Residential Performance) requires the provision of a "B" Category. The applicant is proposing to provide for a `B" Category buffer with a full screen in all locations required. Within the provided 50' buffer distance is an inactive and active portion that is 25' in width, respectively. No activity, other than the screening requirement, may occur in the inactive portion of the buffer. The active portion of the buffer may not be encroached upon by a building or other principal structure or activity. However, accessory activities, such as parking, are permitted in this area. Variance requests 1 and 2: A reduction in one of the front setbacks, or a combination of a reduction to both, may be appropriate to permit the location of a building on this site, especially when considering that every attempt should be made to preserve the integrity ofthe required zoning district buffers. Variance #020-98, Ralph S. Gregory Page 3 September 8, 1998 In developing this site, VDOT is requiring the dedication of 25' along the front of the property for future improvements to Aylor Road. Therefore, the expansion of Aylor Road should not further intrude upon this parcel. Improvements to Interstate 81 are not anticipated to impact this parcel. Variance requests 3 and 4: Staff is adamantly opposed to any variance that encroaches into the buffer area adjacent to the residential property to the north. As requested, the 25' active portion would be eliminated and the inactive portion would be reduced by 8' placing the actual structure just 17' from the adjoining residential property. This would certainly be detrimental to the adjoining property to the north and is unacceptable. It is staff's belief that a smaller building, potentially with two stories, could be accommodated on this property without reducing the buffer area adjacent to this northern property line. Variance request 5: The applicant has not pursued the rezoning of the RP portion of the property. A successful rezoning would eliminate the zoning district boundary and its associated buffer, and would provide an increased area of usable space on the property. It is staff's belief that all remedies should be pursued prior to approaching the Board for a variance. Rezoning the property would alleviate a portion of the hardship unique to this property. Variance request 6: The applicant has not demonstrated that the provision of a full screen creates an undue hardship, significantly restricting the use of the property. While recognizing that an opaque element effectively screens much of the use from the adjoining residential properties, it is staff's opinion that the provision of an opaque element does not create an undue hardship. 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 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. In accordance with Section 15.2-2309(2), and based upon the reasons stated above, staffrecommends the following: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Variance requests 1 and 2 (Revised): Approval Variance requests 3 and 4: Denial Variance request S: Denial Variance request 6: Denial 0:\Agendas\BZA\COMMENTS\R—GREG-2.BZA Page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED The applicant is the owner OUT IN INR - x other PLEASE PRINT . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: Mr. Ralph Gregory NAME: ADDRESS 5368 Main Street ADDRESS: Stephens City, VA 22655 TELEPHONE: (540) 869-3500 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): West side of Route 647 (Aylor Road) at intersection with Route 641 (Double Church Road) 4. The property has a road frontage of 374.23 feet and a depth Of 0 to 168.55 feet and consists of •6999 acres. (please be exact) (30,488 square feet) 5. The property is owned by Ralph S. & Carolyn P. Gregory as evidenced by deed from Grover L. & Edith Leight recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 327 on page 508 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: Opequon 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 75-A-51 8. The existing zoning of the property is: B-2 & RP 9. The existing use of the property is: Vacant 10. Adjoining Property: North East South Residential State Rte. 647 State Rte. 647 & I-81 ZONING RD N N/A N/A West 1-81 N 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.") See Attached Sheet 2A 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 Due to the size, shape and narrowness of the property and the location of I-81, Route 647 and intersecting Route 641, development of the property is restricted and limited. The property has double road frontage. 13. Additional comments, if any See attached plat showing required setbacks. II. Describe variance sought in terms of distance and type. Along Interstate 81 1 _ A 29.9 foot setback variance from Interstate 81 for commercial structure. Chapter 165, Zoning; Para. requirements require a 50 foot setback from I-81. 20. Along North Property Bound (RP to B2) a 48.5 foot x 20 foot single story 165 - 83 Dimensional and intensity 1 feet is proposed. 2. A variance from the north property line to reduce the distance buffer between B-2 and RP zoning categories. The property line is the zoning district boundary, Chapter 165, Zoning; Para. 165.37 Buffers and Screening Requirements require a minimum category's" buffer that includes a total 50 foot distance with a full screen ( 25' active and 25' inactive). An 8 foot variance to reduce the inactive portion of the required distance buffer from 25 feet to 17 feet. • A 25 foot variance to waive the active portion of the required distance buffer from 25 feet with full landscape screen. Along Route 647 A for Road A 12.7 foot setback variance from Route 647 for a 48.5 foot x 70 foot single story commercial structure. Chapter 165, Zonin-; Para. 165.83 Dimensionaf and Intensity Requirements, require a 35 foot setback from Route 647. 22.3 feet is proposed. Note: 25.01. feet will be dedicated to VDOT along Route 647. . fWVK "a-ej r2 f: 647 4. A Kvariance KtheAopaque full screen element of the screening requirement. Chapter 165, Zoning Para. 165 - 37 Buffer and Screening Requirements: Screening; (2) full screen. Along South Zgpkg Boundary -(RP to B2) A variance from the south zoning district boundary to reduce the distance buffer between B-2 and RP zoning categories. The zoning district boundary splits the property. Chapter 165, Zoning; Para. 165.37 Buffers and Screening Requirements require a minimum Category `B" buffer that includes a total of 50 foot distance with a full screen ( 25' active and 25' inactive). • A 25 foot variance to waive the inactive portion of the required distance buffer from 25 feet with land&eap4a screen. page 3 of S 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.) T hese people will' be notifd by mail of this application: 101 Carter Lane NAME Ralph S. & Carolyn P. Gregory Address Winchester, VA 22602 PropertyID# 75-A-51 NAME Roger L. &Deborah H. Mogle 810 Aylor Road Address_ Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID# 75-A-49 NAME J.W. & Mary K. Patterson 189 North Street #2 Address Strasburg, VA 22657 Property ID# 75 -A -4R NAME George Washington Hotel corp. 603-A South Loudoun Street Address Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 75-A-47 107 Double Church Road NjAAffi Robert L. Hoover Address Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID# 74B -4-A-1 NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property IN NAME Address Property IN NAME Address Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # 0 O 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 6 �g (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- - !g,- q y _r�em s #1 akd' 4r�- 2 apprOv"I BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF s I n ACTION: - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: )BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: i J l 1 V� jA,vv \0O x `rte P = r I PSE _ ..r� S � l�,5-�E— YUH .. N� tib`,? J GLM G`- e„SPO 0`516 PIN 75-A,51 30,488 SQ.� FT' 186.54' `� __ SRF � �' . • � - � ; im;[iSl✓APfNG W/: FULL REEN - IRS. ,vsTfiE tr;.i w T VA. SEC. ROUTE 647. �YLOR ROAD 40' R/W C7 —772 —._..� WPP 0 AW INV. 768-90) INV. (769.3n2t)f bail r 1 lwv 769.091 1 L%i rn i \ GLM Q Z w m� o LL.i ao cr- a - C C'1 C.7 (.-) C):� M> d d ri tiurrer ..'- - 10' CHESAPEAKE & NTOMAC T8LEPHONE CO. -CO. OF VIRGINIA EASEMr'N�z� U/G TELEPFIONf�_LINE (APPROX. LOCATINj ~ -_-zr EX. 2` WRPD STL. GAS MAIN (APPROX. LOCATION) EDGE OF PAVEMENT x ----r _~ E 14” W/M (APPROX. LOCATION) IRty uffer S� NP 5 GAS A m s- �. T. f 5 j 3 O 1 i I t.' 4 `� __ SRF � �' . • � - � ; im;[iSl✓APfNG W/: FULL REEN - IRS. ,vsTfiE tr;.i w T VA. SEC. ROUTE 647. �YLOR ROAD 40' R/W C7 —772 —._..� WPP 0 AW INV. 768-90) INV. (769.3n2t)f bail r 1 lwv 769.091 1 L%i rn i \ GLM Q Z w m� o LL.i ao cr- a - C C'1 C.7 (.-) C):� M> d d ri tiurrer ..'- - 10' CHESAPEAKE & NTOMAC T8LEPHONE CO. -CO. OF VIRGINIA EASEMr'N�z� U/G TELEPFIONf�_LINE (APPROX. LOCATINj ~ -_-zr EX. 2` WRPD STL. GAS MAIN (APPROX. LOCATION) EDGE OF PAVEMENT x ----r _~ E 14” W/M (APPROX. LOCATION) C: • • BZA REVIEW DATE: 9/15/98 APPLICATION #016-98 - APPEAL RICHARD A. DYE (RE: Hick's Construction) LOCATION: The property is located at 631 Light Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 20 -A -32I PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land use - Wooded area ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District; Land use - Residential and wooded area APPEAL: Appeal of 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. REASON FOR APPEAL: See attached list from applicant stating his basis for appeal. STAFF COMMENTS: On June 9, 1998, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors granted an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance that allowed for the creation of a 2.2 -acre lot. Subsequently, Mr. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Zoning Administrator, approved the subdivision of this lot on June 12, 1998. Following this approval, a building permit was issued for the construction of a residence on this parcel as all applicable requirements for the creation of this parcel had been met. Mr. David Hicks is currently constructing a residence on this parcel. In accordance with the advice of Mr. Bob Mitchell, attorney for the Board of Zoning Appeals, and Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney and County Attorney, staff maintains the opinion that the procedure used in approving the creation of the 2.2 -acre lot was appropriate. The Board of Supervisors has the ability to approve variations in, or exceptions to, the provisions ofthe Subdivision Ordinance in cases of unusual situations. Therefore, zoning approval of building permit #793-1998 Application #016-98 Richard A. Dye Appeal Page 2 September 9, 1998 was correct and appropriate. It should be noted that decisions of the Board of Supervisors are appealable to the Circuit Court. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the assignment of addresses for new structures. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the ability to deal with issues pertaining to structure numbering. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Affirmation of the actions of the Zoning Administrator in approving building permit #793-1998. File: O:\Agendas\BZA\COMMENTS\RICHRDYE.APP 19 A 38H A/3419 A 3811 A 41A 19 A 3BE9 A 38F 20 A/ A 42 19 A 41 20 A 7A 20 A 1 1 t0A 20 A 6 20 A 4A oaa 20 1 11 20 A 5 20 A 4 20 1 10 20 A 7 20 1 12 20 A 32C 0 1 12 20 A 32D Q� 20 A 32F �+ v 20 A 32E v A 32 20 A 32 0 A 20 A 32A 20 A 32 20 A 7A 2 A G 20 78 19 A iv4B) W(0 20 A 98 HT1 20 A 0 \ 20 A 90 A CL 0 A 19 A 44 //72 23 20 A 33B A 11 20 A 33C (a 20 A 31A �O 19 7 7 19 A 45 19 7 6 20 A 16 19 7 5 A 3 19 7 9 20 A 12 Q 19 A 56 19 7 4 A 1 V 20 A 31 19 7 3 20 .13 20 A 13• Location Map for 20 -A -32A 500 0 500 1000 Feet. John Andrew Light S Planning&Dt Iop—nt, 46 Mn.haw, VA, 5-21-98 N -Ld Area of Detail W E 1 i s\projects\locatior, APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT r 1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: Ne-*Ih�vre' F AME: ADDRESS OCCUPANT: (if different) pLoil er L NAME: //;C /S' ADDRESS:. eSe- -2 a TELEPHONE: 7z)-3_6 TELEPHONE:��� 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 4. Magisterial District: 61Vh5 LSD a-4) 5. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: .2-U -4' -,�.- 6. The existing zoning of the property is:Ai4�xr�'Are-52 7. The existing use of the property is: L PO 8. Adjoining Property: USE ONIN North e'r :v East South�� West 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) .i --22 /-/7 YY�� ©,rtX/n(�ti1�si�_j�/1Orap r -4()-F2 biti//P:' 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) 11. Additional comments, if any: n A 10. Describe the basis of the appeal... The Zoning Administrator has unlawfully approved creation of a nonconforming lot by giving zoning approval for an "Address For New Structure" and a building permit (copies attached) for a lot which does not meet the requirements of the following Sections ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance: - Section 165-2(A) "In all districts established by this chapter, any new lot, use or structure shall be constructed, developed and used only in accordance with the regulations specified in this chapter." - Section 165-5(B) "No land shall be used, occupied or developed or lots created or altered except in compliance with the terms and provisions of this chapter and any other applicable ordinances and regulations." - Section 165-52(A) "The maximum density permitted on any parcel or group of parcels shall not exceed the equivalent of one (1) unit per five (5) acres as determined by the size of the parent tract as it existed on the date of adoption of this section." - Section 165-54. Permitted lot sizes. "The following types of lots shall be permitted: A. Traditional five -acre lots. On any parcel, lots of five (5) acres in size of greater shall be permitted." The newly created lot is 2.2 acres and is designated 20 -A -32I This tract was formerly a part of tract 20 -A -32A (19 acres) owned by John and Martha Light. The Zoning Administrator has unlawfully given zoning approval for a building permit for the newly created 2.2 acre tract in violation of the following Section of the Zoning Ordinance: - Section 165-5(C) "Any person who proposes to construct or alter any building or use or alter the use of any building, structure or land shall apply for a permit from the Director of Code Administration. Such application shall include all information necessary to determine if the requirements of this chapter have been met. The Director of Code Administration shall submit this application to the Zoning Administrator, who shall certify whether the proposed use is in compliance with this chapter. If such proposed use is not in compliance with this chapter, the Director of Code Administration shall refuse to issue a permit for the use." I disagree with the decisions above because they (1) violate the Zoning Ordinance, (2) conflict with Comprehensive Plan which sought to preserve open space, tree cover, and ensure reasonable spacing of housing in rural areas, and (3) have an adverse impact on the value of my adjoining property (20 -A -31A). 11310 Vale Road Oakton, Virginia 22124 June , 20 1998 Kris Tierney Director Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Tierney: Enclosed is my application for appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals pertaining to the fact that the Zoning Administrator issued zoning approval for the following for a tract owned by Hicks' Contracting: (1) Address For New Structure, and (2) a building permit (#793-98). The application fee of $250 is also enclosed. By letter of June 10, 1998, Michael Ruddy notified me that my first appeal (#010-98) was removed from the docket of the Board of Zoning Appeals because the building permit was revoked. I understand that the permit has been reinstated -_'with the same defects which were the subject of my first appeal. I request that you order an immediate halt to construction before the builder acquires a property right in the current zoning status of the property and the building permit. It is clear after discussion with counsel and study of the Virginia Code and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that the Subdivision waiver which the Board of Supervisors approved for Mr. Hicks does not waive or amend the zoning requirements in Sections 165-52(A) and 165-54 of the Zoning Ordinance. In fact, it is clear that the Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to waive a zoning requirement but has the authority to amend a zoning requirement provided such amendment is found to be in the public interest (Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(7). If one were to take the view that a subdivision waiver could be used to waive a five -acre zoning requirement, how do we give meaning to the zoning amendment process described in §15.2-2286(7) and the authority of the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider `waivers" (variances) of zoning requirements pursuant to § 15.2-2309(2)? Requirements pertaining to "areas and dimensions of land" are clearly zoning requirements in § 15.2-2280 (3) and one must follow the procedures of Article 7 of Chapter 15.2 to change them A Virginia Supreme Court case noticed at the end of Virginia Code § 15.2-2240 makes clear that the Court feels there is an important "Distinction between local subdivision and zoning regulations." This case is styled Board of Supervisors v. Horne, 215 S.E.2d 453. This citation goes on to say "There is a significant distinction between local regulations governing subdivisions, enacted pursuant to the enabling provisions of this article and those governing zoning, enacted pursuant to the provisions of Article [7] of this chapter." I call attention to this language to reinforce the concept that a broadly worded waiver provision written pursuant to Article 6 of the Code should not be interpreted as granting the authority to `waive" a specifically worded zoning requirement enacted pursuant to Article 7 of the Code. I would also like to call attention to another Supreme Court case cited at the end of § 15.2-2280 under the heading Zoning is a legislative power vested in the Commonwealth and delegated by it... The specific language appears near the end of that section: "It is an overriding requirement of zoning law in Virginia that only the governing body of a locality may zone or rezone [emphasis added] property and then only by ordinance. Laird v. City of Danville." Though the subdivision waiver was a legislative action, rezoning and zoning amendments must be implemented by ordinances enacted pursuant to Article 7 and such action must be in the interest of the public, not for the personal convenience of the owner. I would also like to call your attention to a Supreme Court case at the end of § 15.2-2280 with the introduction "When spot zoning illegal." A waiver for the personal convenience of one owner is tantamount to "spot zoning". The last case I would like to point out appears at the end of §15.2-2286. It reads "Because there must be a uniform application of the regulations, so that the discretion vested by the ordinance will not be arbitrary, and so that the benefits of the discretion will not be bestowed on some and denied to others under like circumstances. Byrum v. Board of Supervisors. In summary, the law makes an important distinction between subdivision and zoning and the Zoning Administrator does not have authority to issue zoning approval for a building permit for a 2.2 acre tract when zoning requires 5 acre tracts unless a zoning variance is approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals or zoning is lawfully amended by the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, f ) �,j, Richard Dye Enclosure -793 --9& a- n -t cre- ICC Pbnae # (�s , — (4� r'nc.��s- :r V_74 Caczar. Phone ._i New # Stmctmm Laotian: ` Property Idc=tjfzcdaa Nu=bar (PIM): 4:�O " - - 3� --- :Not=( _ Address of New � 3 i � � �-r Ido �4•� Strucrsrt: Stn:ea� Numb= Agpll�-► Z=izg Acpruvca—: CAD Ltra--:- Nctii!cc;•a to O��`AppIic:r Dba= Up ,• . Fiic TRAC.�NG Da.r -�9 - Dat: - �'So • q � Dat:: I K-D�-� Dat.-: Dar.;. Da= Initials: ��, . Initials: uvun;y of Frederick Winchester VA 22601 -mas y_E%7 , VALLEY TITLES BOX 3068 W INC+"CST_R, VA 22601 _ lid%. Contracting Cin`.•rarvli!t 172 3:r ?ai - o � Road Arnewer, , VA 22603 00 540-662-7516 516 AX MAB NO.: 20 A 32' r!-0_�.tACK J =1.JT. • 200+ L=F . 2471 2%7R nibs: Building Permit 3ERY17%- 00 USBG: 199..S 540-6605300 ARO; rA--rN 190 SITE ADDRESS CONTRACTOR AWA, R-rC Hicks Contracting lignt Rom 204 South Bracdca Street Route 685 00000 Wincnester, Virginia :Unv. Rt_' 22601- 260_NONE: NONE:540 662 75i6 ?J CSCR 7RTION NSTR T LOCATION 0ca�tti-.:u`•, 7� G,3�ua;n�u!i3� �bun!iu LOT: BLOCK: SECTION: BLDG NO.: HEALTH RERy TT tiG,. DISTRICT: GANES 3CRA i Lti'J r'_M t'L. SIB -3:0s:00 AREA: Reynolds Store ZONE: Rural Area= ii107-7":v!+:Y: SIE CUP NO.: WE PLAN: DDR=rTrrLS TO S:70 Take Route 522 North, 'iL7`on Route 600, right an Route 6851 (Light Road), lot anright Map Book Page 53, Grid A-3 T-00,10 U.2 S! oLi1 iieSig_ir•:iai USE CODE; Single Family Vi+l__:ii¢L ]ti 1600 i - . New JPC n• J • Size 30 / 2 ass Roof YES terior W 2 .+ a i•L ies 2 _ a -...._ to PORCH c n 30 te 0V!1LL'� S VALUE: a Ir: 5ER& FEE: 774L FEES; __ _ ra;AT•• _ cl /1511 111 C A/ r'J Bui,.__ ig Pergit :Unv. Rt_' NO Floor .tis R :f Floor .4r. CAR1_7 covering S.,.iNG interior ✓r _ !t 4 covering yAr40_ r Bedrooms 3 4 -d v• V!•lil i • i L Ts•..at.« Rli3e 11 Meen Lien YES Vote RA-- .7 r. n` A No te %00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '___________ ___________ _____________ ________________________________________ y74.;V I ! hereby agree ItcLrJlY with all jr4vi7l_^^ofthe Virginia- 1.72 Uniform nir__ S+Gt=Ni.a 20 _ .nj r.._ a'L the Z_i_ _ l vl4-JIVI7IL_ 1 r._ __-- t_r t t„:',i,:n„,ss c5=C�,�:-� :�'r ..'�a Co _ !r�_„�n-Y n7 Frederick. TA.i'J AiY i:1 Z.EO_•1:. L!` 7 L 2) 1 :..:?Va? +. z JLWL:i.J WE I-;,,}7.. t.C._.^,CiJ. AS _r� :N..:AL:J 171.7= ----------------------------------------- -4----------I)------------------• __ _ ra;AT•• _ cl /1511 111 C A/ r'J M JOHN F I NRL PLRi' NOR RURRL SUBDIVISION LAND OF RLRN RNO MRRTHR L. LIGHT GAINESSORO DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX MAP 20 -A -32A ZONE RA USE RESIDENCE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, David M. Furstenau, a duly authorized land surveyor, hereby certify that the land contained in this minor rural subdivision is in the names of John Alan Light and Martha L. Light and is all the land conveyed to them by deeds dated June 2, 1972, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 391, at Page 373, and May 7, 1980, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's 04�ic7 im Deed Book 521, at Page 239, respectively. //// 0 David M. Furstenau, L.S. Owners' Certificate The above and foregoing Minor Rural subdivision of the land of John Alan Light and Martha L. Light as appears in the accompanying plat is with the consent and in accordance"witti the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees, if any. 7r �Alan�Light Martha L. Light STATE OF VIRGINIA Z1.5Y//cO�UNTY to -wit: a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia at Large, hereby certify John Alan Light and Martha L. Light, whose names are signed to the above Owners' Certificate, dated June 10 1998, personally appeared and acknowledged the same before me this a�ll day o J q6 998, in my State and City/County aforesaid. � t Mtarg Publ' T -� GMkyCommissiouexpires: J�,r i ^ yl• . tAPPROVALS aERICC WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT STRATOR HEALT DE ARTM T OF TRANSPORTATION (o - DATE I GGyz sb DA E DATE FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 JUNE 10, 1998 a��l I I I SOUTH LOUDOUN ST. WINCHESTER; VA. I i7F 2 DIK907FG0379 , FINRL PLRT MINOR RURRL SUBDIVISION LAND OF JOHN RLRN RND MRRTHR L. LIGHT GAINESBORO DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARC TAN. CHD. CHD. BRG. 146.61' 74.80' 145.15' N 56030'00"E 171.04' 87.26' 169.35' S 56030'00"11 68.85' 34.73' 68.55' S 20007'53"E 111.74' 55.92' 111.69' 5 08022'13"E AREA TABULATION BEFORE DIVISION 19.955 AC. AFTER DIVISION k1 55'5930" E LOT 1 _ . 2. 159 AC. FUr SERV /B�� 5t£Lr _ ROUTE 600 RESERVATION 0.338 AC. 6�' ROUTE 685 RESERVATION 1.066 AC. °oaoacw�sNcoR S l)g�3r BG REMAINING LAND 16.392 AC;. 9 5' 49a TOTAL 19-955 AC . Q 16T'OIZZ .. 4 �9° evr,�/S �ALTI� p fG 76,0 r� o NAU \ 'QF O AL RMTEz ' i co Ipf s�°F,yC U NO. 1455 P/� C)") o \ a . S��o ,"D SURVE'1�Q� cv o REMAINING LAND ,�� aZ Lo I 16.392 ACR. TM. 20 -A -32A Qw O GARAGE I I e WELL Jpf w / U EXISTING ' Z 54,5 3 MOBILE HOME u1 w l s a w S ��;o O' o cr t 0.5p 57.. 93.21' E s � (p h? /� ��. Ipf H Ipf 0_ its 3 �OOO.,:�% �g0 BRA 0 5 co r is 2 . ' / rih+� b 318. Q3 R' v I / - 506.3 W ps I` N 700 I I a' 3Q 00 "E 335• s 09. eod 5 A2°3� 030, p0"E g'IB 38�- 2.159 ACR' --LTM. 20 -A -32]i ORL cin 154 49 42 857.50' �� N 'n 26.03' Ip' 5 63054'31"W 1175.00' Ipf DYE 42G/591 RA VACANT FURSTENAU SURVEYING IIATWUNE 10, 1998 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STRFFT N N0. RAO. DELTA 1 300.00' 28000'00" 2 350.00' 28°00'00" 3 212.50' I8033'53" 4 1087.50' 05053'13" 0 0 in 0 0 FINRL PLRT MINOR RURRL SUBDIVISION LAND OF JOHN RLRN RND MRRTHR L. LIGHT GAINESBORO DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARC TAN. CHD. CHD. BRG. 146.61' 74.80' 145.15' N 56030'00"E 171.04' 87.26' 169.35' S 56030'00"11 68.85' 34.73' 68.55' S 20007'53"E 111.74' 55.92' 111.69' 5 08022'13"E AREA TABULATION BEFORE DIVISION 19.955 AC. AFTER DIVISION k1 55'5930" E LOT 1 _ . 2. 159 AC. FUr SERV /B�� 5t£Lr _ ROUTE 600 RESERVATION 0.338 AC. 6�' ROUTE 685 RESERVATION 1.066 AC. °oaoacw�sNcoR S l)g�3r BG REMAINING LAND 16.392 AC;. 9 5' 49a TOTAL 19-955 AC . Q 16T'OIZZ .. 4 �9° evr,�/S �ALTI� p fG 76,0 r� o NAU \ 'QF O AL RMTEz ' i co Ipf s�°F,yC U NO. 1455 P/� C)") o \ a . S��o ,"D SURVE'1�Q� cv o REMAINING LAND ,�� aZ Lo I 16.392 ACR. TM. 20 -A -32A Qw O GARAGE I I e WELL Jpf w / U EXISTING ' Z 54,5 3 MOBILE HOME u1 w l s a w S ��;o O' o cr t 0.5p 57.. 93.21' E s � (p h? /� ��. Ipf H Ipf 0_ its 3 �OOO.,:�% �g0 BRA 0 5 co r is 2 . ' / rih+� b 318. Q3 R' v I / - 506.3 W ps I` N 700 I I a' 3Q 00 "E 335• s 09. eod 5 A2°3� 030, p0"E g'IB 38�- 2.159 ACR' --LTM. 20 -A -32]i ORL cin 154 49 42 857.50' �� N 'n 26.03' Ip' 5 63054'31"W 1175.00' Ipf DYE 42G/591 RA VACANT FURSTENAU SURVEYING IIATWUNE 10, 1998 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STRFFT 907PG0380 VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This Instrument f writing wasduced jo me an the —a— day of l9 ff at % -2 IOXI 027. and with certifi ate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was 2 itted to record. Tax Impesad by Sec. §8.1.802 of S . and 66.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. >�� Clerk 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal 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 complete 14 -digit property identification number.) IM. Tu" phi' parle-h 1--JCaes Address a0 4`/ Property ID # Q- - 7+ a vt - - �l 0 rl a Id U) e -a f l l"� n d es Address / 481 S 1-er Ret lr ehe fe r 1/,C • 2;603 Property ID # ). O -- - le- y Address L76 (.(��' f� Dui F z Va Property ID # To h n 19 /A n Y- 4 r 1h Address .2�Z p Property ID k0..t11 r'lf Yi /7 • � Address �-070 S. (,f�:'✓� � er i/� �- X60 Property ID # ao Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # AGREEMENT APPEAL # U 1 & l? I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to overrule the administrative interpretation of the County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions required by the BZA. m I authorize the members of the B4A and Frederick County officials to go upon 9feproperty for site inspection purpose a uDt n w 7�' a04 _ 2-Z I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. . 1 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE 6--a D SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) /rr/!c Ti'e-i'n e y -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF 1 5` ACTION: - DATE - APPEAL OVERRULED L21 APPEAL SUSTAINED File. [CAW TWAPPLICATAPPEAL Rev. 1197 SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DATE: BZA REVIEW DATE: 9/15/98 VARIANCE #023-98 GREGORY AND DEBORAH KLOEPPEL LOCATION: The property is located at 108 Tern Avenue. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 751-1-3-314 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance); Land use - Residential VARIANCE: Request for a four -inch side yard setback variance for an existing residence. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The addition of a garage in 1990 exceeds the allowable setbacks; variance is required before house can be sold. STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, the side yard setback is 10 feet. The addition was constructed in 1990, prior to the implementation of setback survey standards, 9.8' feet away from the front property line, thus requiring the four -inch side yard setback variance. The implementation of setback survey standards will aid the prevention of similar situations in the future. It is staff's belief that the fact that this building addition was constructed in violation of the setbacks should have been addressed at the time of construction and during the inspection process. This did not occur. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this variance request meets the test for Board of Zoning Appeals as specified in Section 15.2-2309(2(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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Page I of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. The applicant is the owner other (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT. 11 JJ (if different) NAME: h �Q X21 NAME: ADDRESS �� rid V ADDRESS: I n r +�, VA - TELEPHONE: A TELEPHONE: Q �b — 3S�1 TELEPHON�. 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): aVen rot 4. The property has a road frontage ofZ. of ,]S� feet and consists of % feet and a depth exact)a L2L ate. (please be `S . -i7y-. 5. The property is owned by G , as evidenced by deed from w� -� '�, r � �' ecorded in deed book no. (Previous owner) ��----- on page ( , �, o f 'the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County; Attach a copy of the deed. ------------------------- y ;" y I ) y ; Page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: O p Ly �- L4r2 it J1 ZI l 7. 14 -Digit. Property ldenl 111l:at1V11 No.: D B. The existing zoning of the.property 9. The existing use of the property is: q, Sir d e,44' �t 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING'�� North .S rjr�a f East South < < West 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and ty ef,i (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached -two car garage.") s -t f be 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 �� cir c{ Q n 1 q D of Ac(-- i 1-1DU�2- .. 2a( il ,•„ w� w� sL)rv.t don e�— ...w Q- i e_ a o� o n -c 6ve- r ., ck e S. D.0 �xoV ix .. 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 11 r f J Y1 0 Address T2 r n Aye YI LI e Property ID# 1- 3 - 313 NAME T Q y Property ID# 31 Address Ak rfiIlVc S lef o OU UboCu--)h.t, OfC9 -'�QL'C3 NAME i 4� i1_' ,�� C. x �' !�� �i Address i C) 7 I e-EnPL;-C. - Property ID# %S -r r 1- - 3 F d af- p h e -n ,� J//I .J j NAME!°� fir , �' �i- a h'r f -, P LCUU&I rtAddress I L) (I I -q r n Property ID# - I - 3 - 3 I o 6k-p-�� t , ��i,, a � 5%C-75 pprnC Address ') J� � kvU.) Property ID# % 5 c. - 3 - 2 - 13 % '� NAME �L �;h'� Address i Property ID# 7gC " 3 " Z I4M Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address Address Address'`' ' Address T7 THAT ON MBR T 12, 1992 I MADE' AN ACCURATE: ;VDT OF THE PREMISES THAT THFRF ARE NO RAST:M1 NTS Ola T;NwimAr'T17,T1WPS TT`iTBLF ON TFM GROUND OTHER HEREON. I TALL IN A YL00D HAZARD ZOITE. ECORDED IN DEED BOOP 686 AT PAGE 075. L-0T 147 5 22021'01"W 49.33 IPF IPF " 4 o L 0 T 314'x, �N 12,000 SQ.FT. LOT 315 C? DAVID M. FURS1'ENAU I W. 1455 ` ` \ IPF r � la 2- ��. Ln ( Ivo su���'� t 9DECK Dc ,8� SH _ ED 10.6' �p SPLIT FOYER � w: M cl rn BRICK 8 FRAME cn i� v{ 94832 I 1 1z STP 1.7 OH� Q CLQ L a w � n 225.71' TO PC IPF RAVEN RD. N 16°10' 14"E 92.37" TERN AVENUE (50' WIDE) IPF HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY F"'*RSTEN U SUr-) x'Eyj iG STEPHElNS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 LOT 314 SECTION 3 GREENBRIAR VILLAGE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: FEBR.' 12, 1592 SCALE: 1" = 30' D WW1. my: 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 QDATE V. SIGNATURE OF OWNER ` (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY - DATE BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF 1-15-90 ACTION: - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED• BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 7 — —q J7 .-, u L: BZA REVIEW DATE: 9/15/98 VARIANCE #024-98 KATHERINE B. CASELEAR LOCATION: The property is located at 163 Stuart Drive. MAGISTERIAL. DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 62A-3-1-3 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 variance of a 6' 10" and 4' 10" rear yard setback variance for the conversion of an existing concrete patio to a year-round attached room REASON FOR VARIANCE: The existing concrete patio is 18'2" and 20'2" from property line; zoning requires 25'. STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, the rear yard setback for a principle structure is 25'. The applicants are proposing to construct an addition to the existing residence that will place the principle structure 18' 2" from the rear property line. Thus requiring a 6' 10" variance. In this case, strict application of the zoning ordinance does not prohibit the use of the property. The property is being used for residential purposes. Also, the size of the patio and addition has not been provided. It may be feasible to construct a smaller addition to the rear of the house in conformance with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, there may be sufficient space elsewhere on the property to locate an addition to the house in conformance with the setback requirements. Katherine B. Casilear Page 2 September 9, 1998 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 the applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship exists that would significantly restrict the use of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial O:\Agendas\BZA\COMMENTS\CASILEAR.BZA 7A \9-3 0 31 32 33� 14 15vi 13 Casilear Frock 12 12A 16 5 6 4 C Smith 14 13 12 11 15 ubrL 6 7 8 9 Rt. 621 / , 79 5A 3 2 19 Freder' 0 1 �e 10 00 Variance #024-98 Katherine B. Casilear PIN: 62A-3-1-3 Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 9-3-98 Page I of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. The applicant is the owner 2. APPLICANT: NAME: ADDRESS other (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE : � ``-1 �' `�� - �-°�' `E TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and,nclude,.y State Route numbers); z �; "' _ ,- CQ' Y 4. The property has a road frontage of E,p 1—f eet and a depth of 't4 �AD' feet and consists of acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous er) in deed book no. on page �' 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.: !. R 8. The existing zoning of the.property is:.. 9. The existing use of the property is:�- 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North T F r' East -Z South West t-. t, 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.") 12. List specific reasons) why the variance is being sought in terms of: - ✓ exceptional narrowness shallowness, size or A- sha P 'e -of property, or P r ,-. , exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary'_ situation or condition of property, or .... _ t the use or development of property immediately adjacent_ ­:.`y.`. thereto rr� 13. Additional comments, if any .5: 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 .IAcldress'. C Property ID# ` NAME. Property ID NAME Property ID#� Address Address NAME i i�'�' `- ��..;�f . '1 i . 1.`` Address I. Al..f�� Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address Page 4 of 5 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page). Show proposed and/or existing structures on elle propel Ly, mcluding measur emientato au props ly h11GJ aiid tv thy, ii%,al VaL ii Ut, UI Uk) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. �(,` 0 17, �- Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE #Nkff 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 !//"�!'L- i , DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY - q r"I BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: DATE BZA CHAIRMAN BZA REVIEW DATE: 9/15/98 VARIANCE #025-98 GARY & DORA MILLER LOCATION: The property is located at 2732 Laurel Grove Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 59 -A -73A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential, Agricultural and Hunt Club. VARIANCE: Request for a 60 -foot side yard setback variance to place a mobile home adjacent to agricultural land. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property. STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the side yard setback (when adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes) is 100'. The applicant is proposing to place a residence 40' from the side property line, thus requiring the 60' variance. A mobile home was previously located on this property; however, its exact location with respect to the property lines was unknown. In addition, the new residential structure is approximately twice as large as the original mobile home. Staff is of the opinion that the requested side yard variance would be necessary to allow for the construction of a residence on the parcel. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an undue hardship and effectively prohibit the use of the property for residential purposes. This parcel was created prior to the implementation of increased setback requirements in the RA Zoning District. 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 Miller Variance Page 2 September 8, 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: Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance as requested, as an undue hardship does exist that is not shared generally by other properties in the vicinity. Furthermore, the authorization of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not change the character of the district. O:\Agendas\BZA\COMMENCS\MILLER.BZA a aid 32 e 31 zaA Jl ,ry Or 33 zs u �O a W � E � � � I �: 8 w ta, 611 ., +� -�.7 � 23 4 ScwDolly +9D 8A m 19E % + • D 4A. d 11 8 `S 2 fi 22 12 u ,, E ✓s ' 19 19A 1x 19F34 ' 4 Oc ' ` ,,� Anderson 52 9yy 0 22A 73A 12 „F 56 �v, 77 ssa 62 3E Big Horn Hunt Club 4 d e �. 77A � NA e, R Na tea, h� Variance #025-98 16A w... f 's "A 7 Gary & Dora Miller PIN: 59—A-73A VhL 17 1s '° 7e�. 7 3 All Zoning in the area is RA >s 71 Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 08-31-98 Page I of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA Yui: :� •-� .; � . •� 1. The applicant is the owner 2. APPLICANT: r NAME: A�°'�1/ ADDRESS other . (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): / � 40 �� 9 4. The property has a road frontage of (� �% '�i feet and 'a depth of 2q:•j;J feet and consists of\ —acres!''(please be exact) q 5. The property is owned by �,�, �� v, ,Ue as evidenced by deed from t recorded (previ us owner) in deed book no. C� > on page °i 7j _-) q 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.: �(� A - -7,3A 8. The existing zoning of the . property is 9. The existing use of the property is 'i'?, , —�) «fie N4 �o4 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North 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.") C,WO( ucwe o-4-�_ I U _ka-v%� . ( Ck d- -( CL �n A r" V- Cc &,,�� cctt4 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 _ '! i 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 subiect property. (Use additional pages iff necessary.) These people will be notifd by mail of this application: NAME `!° Address- _ r Property ID# S� - '� -7 3 NAME^` Address. T' Property ID# -5 NAMEr E- 1 �r�t-�►r�'-=�'� Property ID# Address NAME Address—2- 1- aw" (q ✓" • 1C 4 Property ID# 51 - /'� - _7 Z NAME Address \ Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address BOOK 407 PAGE 643 ..r^ F`i=4 �!:4P.�1�� ..tom;.- . - ,�,•�'_ NF - .;- -ripE PLAT & SURVEY OF N38.32'544''E . 109.95' SAMMY AN DERSON 'S LAND •+':F1r �. 0• i 4e 40(9 �1 i -� a • c. Ca , - 0 N t . � • CrI '4' � �1 y M AREA: 1.13 ACRES A. 3 W t��•�00 t t a 'W v+ z ., # i!< S 36.22' 58"W 146 33' i ' •i '1 • RICHARD W. ORNDOF F ' i'' _ MARY K. ORNDOFF DICED BOOK 193 PAQ9 340 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT -FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA O O 0 EL aC p „ Z O a oz o 3 0 a ( o ✓r O Q Y c SCALE :I"= 50' uv NOTE_ 1 CERTIFY THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY HAS BEEN A TRANSIT AND STEEL TAPE "SURVEY AND THAT THE ERROR OF TRAVERSE CLOSURE IS 1 : 12,343f NOVEMBER 30,-_1972 LOUIS. J. MATACIA ". -CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR 2700 GALLOWS 'ROAD VIENNA, VIRGINIA 703- 560-8993 VIRGINIA rREDZRICK COUNTY, SCT. }. This instrument of writing was produccd to me oa the �p day of . 1�� - at/� t+nd with certificate f act: iowtedgment tliore:o arxna:31 rrue ac :i to record. Tax unposed ny Sec. 56-64.1 ,,t and 58-S4"havo been paid, if a..ao.sabio. 1 Clerk. Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # v 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 OWNERA- (if DATE �other than applicant) l ' BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF -OFFICE USE ONLY- 3174X I M APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION: BZA CHAIRMAN